Posh and I Destroy Mormonism DEBATE

[Music] Generally, generally, uh, here's what actually happened in money. I'm really mad. What difference does it make? Right. Stop. The deregulation of the industry is obviously going to cause more of that industry and to lubricate the trust connection between people until they have enough. Yet, we could still look at biological reality in determining who's a female, even if there are. Why don't you deny denounce feminism the same way you're denouncing capitalism? If you don't hear something to be objective, it needs to be verifiable. And you can't verify. If I make a claim as a political pundant, it is true that I definitely could be wrong. You're promoting, right? Ideologies, politics, right? This is my ideology. This is so 2015. Anyone go back and watch the footage? The first GOP debate. Good for our music. [Music] Heat up here. And good evening, ladies and gentlemen. I am Sarah the Raing Tomato here, bringing to you live another moderator Monday on a Friday evening. Yes, you heard that correctly. This evening with me, I've got Jim Bob, Posh Redneck, Joshua, uh Stacy from Stream Rift, and Dennis. Oh, how do I say it? Miss Magoy is fine. Migo, is that how I say it? So, thank you. I didn't even think to ask earlier. My apologies. And the gentlemen here are going to debate the question, was Joseph Smith a false prophet? We've all been waiting for this as well since the last round. Jim Bob, would you like to begin with your opening statements, please?

Sure. Thank you so much. Could you put me in uh the main screen for a second? Yeah, you need the um uh Oh, you want to My apologies. That was my mess. Alrighty. Well, first, I want to start with considering the question is of uh prophet status. I wanted to uh go to Deuteronomy 18, which both uh my team and my opponents affirm in their theology. It says, "If a prophet speaks in the Lord's name, but their prophecy doesn't come to pass, it is a false prophecy and the prophet should not be feared." This passage is emphasizing that the true prophets speak in accordance with God's revealed truth and their uh predictions must be fulfilled. So, the question of whether or not Joseph Smith is a prophet is a question of whether or not his prophecies were fulfilled. So, uh I'm going to going to go right into this argument here to make it a little more clear. Premise one, if Joseph Smith is a false prophet, then Mormonism is false. Premise two, Deuteronomy outlines that a prophet's prophecies must come true or he is a false prophet. Premise three, Joseph Smith's prophecies did not come true. Conclusion, Joseph Smith is a false prophet and Mormonism is false. Now, of course, the debate is about premise three, right? So, we're going to get right into um you know, some of the false prophecies here. Let me just remove my big head for a second. Where are you? Um, sorry. Plenty of time. Plenty of time. Alright, let's go into this. So, in 1835, Joseph Smith prophesied the Lord's return within 56 years. This is from the history of the church, volume 2, page 182. By 1891, this was proven to be a false prophecy. In 1843, Joseph Smith prophesied that the United States government would be overthrown and was wasted within a few years if they refuse to redress the wrongs committed against the Mormons in Missouri. Uh um that's also from the history of the church, volume 5, 394. The United States government has never formally redressed any wrongs committed against the Mormons in Missouri, and the government still stands nearly 170 years later. Now, they might look at that and say, well, that's the history of the church. That's an expose. Well, let's go to Doctrine and the Covenants section 84, which is their own documents. In 1832, Joseph Smith prophesied that the present generation of Mormons would not pass away before the temple of the New Jerusalem would be built on Zion. In Zion, in Missouri, by the way, um the Mormons were forced to flee Missouri and no temple was constructed there in Joseph Smith's lifetime or within the generation that witnessed this prophecy. In 1832, Joseph Smith prophesied that the United States civil war would eventually engulf all nations. This is also from the Doctrine and Covenants section 85, 87. This prophecy also did not come true. So, we've got four. There are actually about Let me get my camera back. Sorry. There are there are about nine that I actually documented that um you know, could be categorized and should be categorized as not fulfilled. There's another one that's kind of interesting. Uh, it's called the Kinderhook plates. The Kinderhook plates were a set of forged metal plates presented to Smith, who claimed they contained the writings of the the descendant of a pharaoh. Um, Smith attempted to translate them, but that was later debunked. And that's not the only thing he uh incorrectly translated, as my partner will probably mention in his opening. So, what I have 30 seconds left. Yeah, you're good. Okay. So, one more time, I want to present the argument just so you guys get it clear. If Joseph Smith is a false prophet, then Mormonism is false. Premise two, Deuteronomy outlines that a prophet's prophecy must come true or he's a false prophet. Premise three, Joseph Smith's multiple prophecies did not come true. Conclusion, Joseph Smith is a false prophet. I believe that um if only one can be shown to be false, um then Joseph Smith is a false prophet. With that, I will uh concede my the rest of my time and and uh send Posh into his tirade. Thank you, Jim Bob. Posh to you. You're still on mute.

Yes. Thank you very much. I'd like to start by apologizing that I'm not Andrew, so it will not be as entertaining as I might have expected. Uh, but uh, you know, I work for that. There is a connection. Um, starting from where Jim Bob ended, um, there is no reason for Christians, as we look at our scriptures, to expect a prophet come some 1800 years after uh, Christ himself. We have no indication of this. If we are told to expect Christ, we have all sorts of references, Genesis to Malachi, and we can employ them. But uh, we have no indication. So it seems sort of like with Islam, well, we are here because something needs to be corrected. Something was wrong. We don't know when. We don't know where, but something was wrong and we need to correct for it. Now, there are many things to go for uh, but as so as not to be uh accused of gish galloping, I'm going to focus mostly on a piece of Mormon scriptures called the Book of Abraham. Now, the Book of Abraham was per was and is part of the Pearl of Great Price uh in and part of the uh collection of canonized scriptures of the Mormon faith. And it started off as uh a collection of papyri uh purchased in 1835 by Joseph Smith, who claimed that they were handwritten uh by uh Abraham the patriarch. Uh, and uh he proceeded to translate them. Uh, he had about nine years more of life. He didn't finish that, and the Book of uh Joseph that was supposed to be also contained in there never got uh any translation at all. So the papyri um ended up through a line of succession uh in Chicago, and most of them were destroyed in the Great Chicago Fire of 1871. Uh, the remnants uh were rediscovered uh and ended up in the Metropolitan Museum of Art in New York in 1947, ending up in the hands of the LDS Church in 1967. Now, upon examination, it turns out that there were a couple of problems. First of all, they were funerary texts dating back to at latest 300 BC. So we're about 1700 uh years prior to Abraham himself, at least. Um, alongside that, we have the facsimiles that we can compare to the ones that are pretty common. So, a facsimile is an identical copy of the hypocephalus, which is Greek for under heads, uh a type of pillow of sorts, if you will, for the deceased, um, which contained this circular representation of certain aspects of of the pagan Egyptian faith. And a rather common depiction, for example, of Anubis uh imbalming someone, uh was damaged in the copies that we have got, and in the facsimile, he Joseph Smith drew in a human head instead of the head of Anubis. Now, this is very, very common depiction in Egypt. So it shouldn't uh surprise anyone if we, as Eastern Orthodox, saw a pretty common uh icon of the most holy Theotokos, Blessed Virgin Mary, uh without a head, like the icon was damaged, and someone replaced it with a bearded man, we would know what what was going on. But uh, so as not to go on too much, um, even if we were to grant that what was actually legitimate were the papyri over in uh in Chicago, we can go to the content of the translations penned by Abraham's own hand. So, to give you a couple of examples, for example, he is called Abraham, and his wife is called Sarai. The only place you could put that in the Bible is between Genesis 17:5 and uh 15, which is when they received their names Abraham and Sarah. Prior to that, they were Abram and Sarai. So this discrepancy cannot be dealt with. Another one, which is probably my favorite, as I was reading through this piece of literature, was that he claims that Egypt was named after a a woman called Egyptus, uh, which is apparently the Chaldean word for forbidding. The problem is that as Abraham himself, in the purported letter, calls himself as from the land of Chaldea, is that the Chaldeans would not inhabit that part of the world for another 1100 years. So it would be akin to saying, "Oh, we found this uh uh this uh diary from from the 1620s from New York, claiming to be from New York, when uh New York wasn't named renamed to New York from New Amsterdam until 1664. So it is an obvious discrepancy. Not to mention the fact that Abraham would not have spoken Chaldean for the very reason he might have spoken Aramaic and or ancient Akkadian, both of which would not have the word forbidden for uh Egypt, but rather some variation of "Igupt," which means the borderlands. So uh, in addition to that, the name Egypt is a Greek one. In Greek, it's Aigyptos, or in more old-timey Greek, Aigyptos, and it means the house of Ptah. So he took a language that would not be present there for about 1100 years, confused it with a Greek name, and apparently just added us the suffix "us," which is a very common, very common masculine suffix in Latin. It can be in feminine nouns of the fourth declension, but uh mostly for the second declension, "us" are masculine nouns to make it sound old-timey. Um, this cannot be rectified by in any way, shape, or form. How much have I got? If I've got any, you're I'll give you 30 seconds. I'm over time already. Right. So it doesn't matter. We can go on later. I don't want to uh take any much time. Thank you very much.

Thanks. Those comments are killing me. Joshua to you, sir.

Oh, I think it was going to be to Dennis first. There we go. Um, oh, my apologies. I messed that one up again, didn't I? No worries. Alright, Dennis. Sorry.

Yeah. Thanks again for for for putting me on here. Um, you know, I don't know how much of the audience or the uh or the fellow folks on the panel here uh are familiar with the 1990s film My Cousin Vinnie, where he, you know, the beginning of the trial, and he gives his opening uh arguments after the uh after the prosecutor gives, you know, nice, well-reasoned opening arguments, and he just gets up and says, "Everything that guy just said is bull," you know, I'll spare you the profanity, but uh, is not true. And and what's illustrative, I think, kind of with that, the the prosecutor in the case in the film, he's likewise, he's not a vindictive person. He's not trying to lie. He's not trying to put innocent people in prison, but he takes all the facts and all the information that he has, and the ultimately the picture that he puts together and the statement that he comes out of it with is the wrong one. So, that's what I'm going to. So, I'm not going to, you know, it's not about necessarily deception, but I think my my friends here are um just mistaken and maybe maybe have a little bit of a Well, I'll put it, I'll leave it at that and just kind of go on. I think part of the crux of where we're getting caught up here is again, there's this sort of misguided or or misguided focus in in terms of what a prophet is. And there's a real um I I recall listening to to Andrew on the on the previous debate, and and I've seen the same kind of thing here from Jim Bob regarding, well, the Deuteronomy piece, which I think is a little bit misconstrued here. Um, but simply saying, well, if he prophesies, he says something's going to happen, um, and then it doesn't happen, then, well, that's it. Um, and again, I don't think that that's exactly um, if you, and I guess maybe it depends on on some of the bits on the translation here. Uh, if we're looking at uh Deuteronomy there, when I'm looking at it, Deuteronomy 18, 22, it comes in and says, "If the if the thing followed not nor come to pass, that is the thing which the Lord hath not spoken, but the prophet has spoken it." But again, we need to qualify as to whether or not the things um that were spoken were not spoken by the Lord. But I know at least one of the prophecies that was mentioned about the second coming being by whatever year that was, one of those conditional prophecies that said that if Jesus, that excuse me, that if Joseph Smith uh lived for until whatever age, then he would get to see the second coming. He didn't live to that age. Um, so that was a conditional sort, but um, but it's not even limited to that, and we'll we'll we'll get into um, kind of disproving that. But the thing that I want to focus on is what I think is the the standard we should be focused on when you're trying to evaluate a prophet, because again, this is not the primary function. I know it we kind of maybe miss the focus because of the kind of the way we use the language and we talk about and we have words like prophetic, and and and I know from from our standpoint, particularly on the LDS side, we we put maybe too much emphasis, I think, on or maybe not too much emphasis, but on talking about things like translation and such. But what is the function of a prophet? Um, you know, we're not talking about Nostradamus. We're talking about, you know, like Moses, okay, who is going to lead God's people, he is going to speak on his behalf, he is going to guide them, set them on a path, um, probably endure hardship, uh, in particularly within Joseph Smith's case, um, go through some quite a bit of difficulties as the church was going through its um, the early years of the organization of the church in this dispensation. So, um, I think the standard we need to look at, and and actually to get to a point that was mentioned or touched on a little bit here, and I don't think not touched on very much in the in the prior debate, is the question of whether or not we should be expecting prophets before we can even answer the question of, is Joseph Smith truly a prophet? Should there even be prophets? Now, there there's the claim that, okay, the New Testament doesn't really say, hey, expect more prophets. And that's fair, but again, the New Testament is coming still among a people who had prophets in the past. There's no nothing in there. I mean, we're not Muslims, so it's not like we have in Islam where they say, "Oh, Muhammad's the last prophet and that's it." We don't have that in Christianity. Um, so from those people, I would say that there would almost be a default expectation. But moreover, I think if you look at uh a popular scripture that I think a lot of people would actually use when they're trying to go uh and sort of need to zoom this out over here. Um, no, I'm looking at the wrong one. Um, when you're looking at the um at this question, uh a popular scripture that people go to goes in Matthew's chapter 7, starting at verse 15, where they talk about beware of false prophets, and in the succeeding five or six verses, they actually give you the measuring stick, which is quite a bit different measuring stick from what we're just talking about about how to identify a prophet. Um, but the very fact that there is a warning and a and a measuring stick or or a method given to discern, what would you need to discern a false prophet from but a true prophet? If there is not going to be a true prophet, it would be much simpler to say there there's going to be no more prophets. Uh, but that's not what's said. Instead, we say, beware of false prophets, and here's how you can discern the false prophet from the true prophet. I think that at a bare minimum, sets the stage that, hey, well, there should be at some point in the future prophets again. And what is the also the purpose of the prophet preparing people, uh, preparing for the coming of the Lord? We still do believe in the second coming, so there is still preparation. I think we can look around the world that we see and see that there's there's much to do, um, a lot we need to get in order. So, um, how much uh, how am I on time? Negative. We have 30 seconds given. All right. So, um, yeah, I I I'll save it for to to go and kind of read through this a little bit later. Uh, suffice it to say, the succeeding verses there in Matthew chapter 7, if anyone hasn't already looked at them, it goes on about the fruits of the church. And I think uh, we'll get into that, I guess, a little bit more once uh, past the opening remarks and get a little more time to talk about what that is and why I think that is demonstrable of the fact that um, again, a a true prophet, a false prophet isn't going to build and set the stage for what uh, what we see and plant the tree, as I would say, has planted the planted the seed that grew into the tree that is today the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and bearing the good fruit that it does. So, I will uh, stop there and pass it over to Josh.

Thank you, Dennis. And Joshua to you.

All right. Well, so I'm uh really excited about this uh Jim Bob. I'm especially interested in how uh you formally put together what your presuppositions are and we've got a clear argument. I thank you for that. I'm going to disagree with Dennis here. For example, you gentlemen brought up the Kinderhook plates. That's a fair criticism. That's a thing that exists to the best of my knowledge. We're talking about over 200 years ago. I don't think we can dispute, you know, if to the extent that we know that things happen, that's a reasonable criticism. The same thing with the um the Pearl of Great Price. Now, where I'm going to pull this back just a little bit though, is with with if Joseph Smith is a false prophet, what specifically does that mean? And if we're sticking within Jim Bob's framework of Deuteronomy 18:20-22, and I'm using the New King James Version, um what it actually says is if the prophet has spoken it wrong, the last line is, "You shall not be afraid of him." The the biblical imperative laid out in that passage, not that there aren't others, but as far as what's been put forward, is, "You shall not be afraid of him." So, okay, don't be afraid of Joseph Smith. You know, when we're looking also at at prophecies in general, right? What it is? What's the the question? The question is, was Joseph Smith a true prophet? Well, what is a prophet? Is a prophet, if we look at biblical definitions, a prophet calls people into Christ. A prophet calls people to repentance. A prophet does any number of things. And throughout the Bible, there's stories of very imperfect prophets. Fortunately, God can work with imperfect men. Otherwise, he'd have no men to work with. And so, I believe that we could easily find any number of flaws with Joseph Smith personally. But let's really take a deep dive and look at the fruits. How many people has Joseph Smith turned to Christ? The answer is millions upon millions. My my priesthood line of authority through the Melchizedek priesthood is a direct line has been done through a direct laying on of hands from Joseph Smith down to Brigham Young, all the way down seven or eight more, or about seven more generations to my dad, and then to me. And this isn't a passive thing that happens. This is the the uh ideological heritage, similar to as one might refer to, I believe, the church elders and the Eastern Orthodox. I don't want to speak out of turn on that or anything. I'm not super familiar with it. But but these these teachings of the Book of Mormon, I think that the central, the central thesis of what Joseph Smith's prophecy was, was that the Book of Mormon was the most correct of any book, and that a man would come closer to Christ by studying it than by any other book. And so I think that if we're using the definition of, did Joseph Smith make a prophecy that was incorrect? We we don't have a discussion to have anymore. By that definition, the box is checked. I think the greater question is, if we're we're taking a look at it less like the Pharisees and more as if we're we're doing an inspection of the facts here. Does the book bring people closer to Christ? Does the life work of Joseph Smith, sealed with his martyrdom, does that does that is that the the fruit of God? Is that the fruit of a Christian God? And what the last thing I'll I'll I'll end on and uh is uh I pose it to Jim Bob here. Very specific and pointed question. I'd like to explain what problems the Mormons had in Missouri and why perhaps Joseph Smith was upset about what had happened, specifically. And I I'm I'm not this isn't to to dog on him or bag on him, but I believe he's very aware of it. And the fact of the matter is, many people are unfamiliar with state-sanctioned religious genocide on American soil. And so I'll say, in the greater context of things, looking at it over 200 years later, we've got a book that's been translated into multiple languages. It's been spread all over the world, and it is a testament to Christ. The the folks that study Christ, uh, study the teachings of the Mormon faith, study Christ, and strive to become like Christ. And so if that isn't a Christian religion, then it's I struggle to find any other sensible definition for it. If you can say that a religion that teaches, "Here is the how Christ lived, let's try to become like Christ," isn't a Christian church, then outside of pedantic ritual, what is the alternative definition of Christian? And that I'm ending under time.

Very nice. Sometimes it's hard because I think I think people are ending soon and then they keep going and so it's like uh, but I put a stopwatch up. It was easy. That that is fair. That's easy. Thank you, gentlemen. And a kind reminder to the audience. Uh, we are going to get through open dialogue for the debate, and then when we'll move into closing statements, and of course, we will read and respond to your kind super chats. And then of course, as always, we will go into open panel dumpster fire. Bonus points to the chat. You've already been cracking me up. If you can make me actually laugh, uh, bonus points to you. Outside of that, gentlemen, the floor is open.

Um, well, you did point a question at me, but the whatever Joseph Smith was concerned about is irrelevant to the topic of of the debate. What's also irrelevant to the topic of of the debate is what you consider real Christianity. You know, um, if it's turning people to Christ, how could it not be Christian? The topic of the debate isn't whether or not Mormonism is legitimate Christianity. We could definitely have that debate another night. I would I would love that. Um, but the topic of the debate is whether or not Joseph Smith is a true prophet. And it sounds like both of you took the route of uh equivocation and you made it ambiguous as to how do you determine a true prophet from a false one. Can you tell us? I just I want to push back on that one and actually I'm going to ask. So I believe my framework of what a Christian prophet is was where I was tackling that. So what definition of a prophet are you using? We're using yours. If I may, if I may just finish that, the definition that it sounds like you're using is anyone that makes a false claim, claiming to be of God, makes a prophecy, is de facto then essentially a blacklist, permanent, can't be a true prophet. That's is that roughly the logic on it?

Well, absolutely. Uh, because I um, you mentioned that there's some faultiness in the translation. So I would direct people to an NE Bible, which is a a project that is very, very hardy for us linguists, but it tries to do the most basic level translation as as as literally as it is allowed. And I'm happy to read as long as we can agree not using the NIV. I I will I will co-sign that with with ACR. Uh, but here you go from the NE: "But if any prophet presumes to speak anything in my name that I have not authorized him to speak, or speaks in the name of other gods, that prophet must die. Now, if you say to yourselves, how can we tell a message uh is not from the Lord? Uh, whenever a prophet speaks in my name and the prediction is not fulfilled, then I have not spoken it. The the prophet has presumed to speak it, so you need not fear him." So, uh, if If I may though, just to wind it back because we're still at definition. So, I appreciate you going through and that we're looking at like the etymology, and I'm I'm I like linguistics enough to know the word etymology and pull it out. However, what is the definition of a prophet? Is it I'd like I'd love one from you gentlemen.

I can summarize the orthodox position for a prophet. So, the prophet is a station in the or a position, if you like, in the Old Testament, then one fulfills and is the paving the way for the arrival of the Lord. For example, in Micah 4 and 5, we find that the Lord promises Elijah to come to make way for the way of the Lord, and that Elijah is, of course, St. John the Baptist. And in Matthew 11:13, we are told that the prophets have prophesied until John. Uh, that's John the Baptist, not John the Evangelist. Now, the the purpose of a prophet, of course, and again, I co-sign another thing, it's not about predicting the future. That is part of it, but that is certainly not the wholeness of it. The point is to spread the word of the Lord. Um, if we start with Isaiah, which I noticed a lot while I was reading Nephi, it tends to be fan. Um, he does not make just bold predictions about the future. He says, "What you're doing right now is like you exercise some type of legalism. You know, you still do the the um, the sacrifices. You still do the motions, yet your heart is, you know, not in it. And he says, what you should do is you should help the poor and help the widows, the orphans, etc." So that is definitely part of the prophetic uh calling, as is uh the calling of Elijah, who has to go and do battle with uh with the prophets and priests of Baal. And at one point, St. Elijah asks God to take his life because he can't bear the the weightiness of of the apostasy of his people, and God reassures him, obviously. So, it's not about us saying every prophet is perfect. He does nothing wrong. That's one of the crucial differences between the Bible and a lot of the the uh, the the ancient literature that we find. There is no these rags to riches things. There is no uh, all sorts of faultinesses that we can find with its main characters. Certainly, that is the case with the Bible. But um, if we take, you know, what Isaiah did, what uh, I mentioned Elijah, um, we can mention others, but they are there to preach the word of the Lord and prepare the way for you. And that just sorry to interrupt, but if you guys are affirming that Joseph Smith is a true prophet, that's a yes, right? Correct? Then do you have a standard for what constitutes a true prophet, and does that coincide with the history of Christianity?

Yeah. I mean, my standard is the one that Christ sets out in Matthew 7, uh, verses uh, 15, where he gives the warning. "Ye shall know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes," etc., etc. "By their fruits ye shall know them. You can't uh, every tree that bringeth forth not good fruit." Now, this is not again, good fruit. Human beings don't sprout fruit, obviously, but um, but we understand what we're talking about. What is the what is the end effect? And and actually, before before I kind of get into that measuring that standard, but to kind of go back to this kind of what I think is a little bit simplistic, to say, well, he predicted this thing and it didn't happen, let's just go to stick to the Old Testament. Jonah chapter 3, verse 4. "Jonah began to enter the city, a day's journey, and cried, and he said, 'Yet 40 days and Nineveh shall be overthrown.'" Go down to verse 10. "And God saw their works, and they were turned away from their evil way. God repented of the evil, and he said that that he would do, and said that and that he said he would do unto them, and he did it not." So, he predicted in 40 days, Nineveh would be overthrown. Nineveh wasn't overthrown in 40 days. Um, well, to be so as far as using a definition, we're still trying to get to what is the standard for a prophet, right? Like you're doing a story, but you just said anyone who bears good fruit. I mean, people in our parish could bear fruit. If I may just give that doesn't mean they're all they're all prophets, right? So you're still dealing with the equivocation and the ambiguity of what a prophet is, such that you can call Joseph Smith a true one and maybe someone else a false one. I I still don't hear what it is. I think Joshua wants to clear that up.

Yeah, I've got a a real tight argument here. Um, one of the byproducts of spending a lot of time writing legal briefs is I have to use small amounts of words to try to explain something. So, I I think if we're looking at a prophet, we can look at the Bible and say there's prophets in the Bible. What do they have in common and find some patterns? I think that a prophet is someone that cries repentance into people. A prophet is someone that that draws people towards Christ. And those aren't necessarily all-encompassing or whatever, but it it gives a framework, right? So, if this is a person that's claiming to be the voice of God and working on behalf of God, what are they doing? And I think that's where that fruits argument can come in. But under the lens of, did, so for example, is Joseph Smith a true Christian prophet? To add that element to it, Christ is at the heart and center of the Mormon faith. Now, I'll add just a little tidbit here that's going to be a some of the folks in chat might get more of a kick out of this. I actually identify specifically as a Mormon. I believe that the corporate structure, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints itself has drifted at least somewhat from what the message of the Book of Mormon and the Bible itself is. So I'd consider myself more aligned with, for example, aligning with the teachings of the Book of Mormon, and to a slightly lesser extent the New Testament, and to a slightly lesser extent the Old Testament, because I don't believe in slavery, and the Old Testament's got some pieces that are hard for me to reconcile there. However, on the balance, if Joseph Smith was a prophet, would we find that he drew, he drew a lot of people to Christ? I think that answer to that, if it's yes, then he's a Christian prophet and a true Christian.

Okay, cool. Listen, listen, hold on. I I run a channel and I've gotten a lot of people telling me face to face and in notes that they uh converted because of me. Am I a prophet? Have you asserted that you're a prophet? Uh, no. I'm using your standard, if I may. Have I asserted that I'm a prophet? No. No. But here's my point. Here's my point. It's not about saying that anybody who the standard isn't saying that anybody who does this is Okay. I'm doing it right now though. I'm a prophet. Debunk me based on ad LDS. So you're you said you converted people to what? Eastern Orthodox. No. To Christ. Yeah. Am I I'm a prophet. You guys use your LDS standard to falsify that I'm a prophet. I just declared it. So I brought people. Why would I falsify that? So because you have to determine whether or not No, please. This is a big deal. No. No. If you want to throw the mantle of responsibility on yourself to go out there and act as an emissary of God and do all I'm I'm happy to to uh to answer that. Uh, first Nephi says that there are two churches. The church of the Lamb of God and the church, the great abominable church, started by the devil or whoever. Yeah. So yeah, it would be important to bring him to the right church now, wouldn't it? Mhm. Yeah. My Well, this goes back to my definition of Christianity. Those who study and strive to be like Christ. While we may disagree on any number of things, I believe generally speaking, the Eastern Orthodox Christ believes many of the exact same, if not identical things as any other Christian faith. And so I believe that frankly, what about a Christ that's not God? What about bringing people to Christ, but he's not God? Yes. You're sort of saying, well, yeah, it's someone if it's someone called Christ, as we get to a word concept, what's the distinction? No, because Muslims believe in Jesus. They call him al-Masih, right? So they just believe me, really believe that he exists, or do they worship him? Uh, not only they don't worship him, that's a big no-no. Consider Well, then they can't be Christian. But indeed, but they from the virgin birth, for example, I also remember in Nephi, it says that the Virgin Mary was exceedingly white and fair. Um, it is it's the problem being that if I said David or Joshua, hope I'm not mistaken. Dennis, but he's not going to be that particular. Oh, I'm sorry, Dennis. I do have the Can I drop the names off? So, yeah. So, so I if I said uh Joshua, this Filipino woman, you know, fighting for uh, you know, uh, prepubescent transgender surgeries, and you know, someone starts saying, well, I believe I support Joshua, and I I hope and have great confidence that I'm right in saying you wouldn't support such a thing. Um, saying that, well, you drew him to Joshua the Filipino. If I said uh woman who supports transgender surgeries for minors, you know, it's not the same thing. There is one Christ. Uh, and there's no way to simply say, well, we have we purport to represent someone named Jesus Christ. So if we try sort of get things right, it's good enough. Well, the Christ set, which one? "By this ye shall know that ye are my disciples, if you have love one to another." I think if you take a look at the actual um ministry of Christ, it's very obvious what Christian teachings and what Christian living is like, and and there is an awful lot that that that one can infer. For example, I'll ask you this, Posh, and you too, Jim Bob, of course. Um, do you do you think that we're looking at different sides of the mountain, or that we're looking at different mountains? Your I believe Mormonism is a dungeon. Oh, wow. That's that I've never heard that one before. It's that broken. Mormonism is Moriah. That's what Yeah. Yeah. Here's the thing. It's We won't even get into the metaphysics. That's a different debate. The topic is, is Joseph Smith a true prophet? And so if you guys affirm he is, we need to know from your standard because you're the one making the affirmation that he's a true prophet. That would necessitate that there's such a thing as a false prophet, right, under your own system, right? So please, please tell us the distinction between a true prophet and a false prophet. Prophet as if orthodoxy didn't even exist. And and and the fact that you can have a false prophet if you could have a false prophet that preaches a false Christ. Mhm. Therefore, nominally drawing people to worship. So please tell us the standard for determining the mechanism, the methodology for determining a false prophet from a true one. In this case, you're saying the true one is Joseph Smith, and a false one is someone else. What are how are you distinguishing between the two? How do you falsify the false one?

Well, I have one question for Posh. I want the example. You're going to ask you're going to ask a question to my question. I'm trying to work within a framework that's already been established. I'm happy to answer it if you you want to be that today. Fine. The simple question was, I wanted a name to embody the false that the the individual that Posh described, I would describe as a false prophet. So I just wanted to use a name. Joseph Smith Wolf would be fine. Joseph Smith Wolf. Joseph Smith. Use Joseph Smith if you want to. Joseph Joseph Smitty. Joe Smitty. Joe. Okay. Well, I'll use this one. We'll say we'll say uh female minister. We'll stick with that one. Since Andrew is not here, we'll we'll pick on the Protestants about some female ministers. Um, so if you have a false prophet, there's a starting very simple test that's laid out. Now, a fundamental Mormon concept in doctrine is that you are required and empowered to study things out and research and come to your own conclusions. So, a false prophet or so, a true prophet brings people closer to Christ. So the boolean opposite of that would be someone that draws people away from Christ. So, for example, if we have a false prophet, they're out there saying things like, I don't know, we need to destroy the nuclear family. Uh, we need to have parents that abandon their children. We need to have no accountability for for people that are committing crimes. All of these other things. However you want to tackle it, that's sort of the compass on the back and forth.

Wait a second. Hold on. Let me interrupt you here. Can't Satanists uh um go against all of those things you just said? Well, the the question is, are they? Can they? Yes or no? Can Satanists go against all those things? Uh, the true stuff, the destruction of the family. Can Satanists suddenly value uh the the what looks like from a fly on the wall, traditional structures, community, no wacky stuff? Isn't it possible for Satanists to do that?

I'm going to rephrase what I think you heard to make sure I'm affirming what you think I heard or what I what I think you heard. So, could a Satanist advocate and champion all of those same values? The answer is yes. Can a Satanist be a prophet? Uh, a a Christian prophet? I would say no. Why not? He's drawing he's drawing people all to those good things you're saying. Jim, let let me I want to mention something worse than a Satan, an Episcopalian. So, could uh so they approve of all of the LGBT nonsense and they would make the claim that they are bringing these poor distraught people over to Christ. What would you say to them if they are bringing, let's say thousands, let's be generous, uh thousands of people to sing? Oh, I mean, I think Go ahead. Go ahead, Posh. Yes. And saying Christ created you the way you are, not to deny yourself. I see. I see. So, I have to ask one question about the the the presupposition that this is a Satanist. How can a Satanist be preaching Christ? No, he switched over to evangelical. I switched over to the West just to less confuse everybody. Well, that's because you Eastern Orthodoxies have some theory that Christianity is in this one box and everybody else is narrow. Is it narrow? Are you saying we believe that this is the level? Wait a second. Are you saying Christ established a church and it's narrow? Are you saying that's crazy? What I'm saying is that the New Testament sort of paints a picture of a Christ that you guys don't seem to like that much. What? How do you who determines the interpretation of the New Testament? Certainly not Joe Schmidy. Wait, wait, please address the thing about Episcopalians. So, they purport, they claim to represent Christ, and they have lesbian bishops. So, can I jump in here? Um, so yeah, you're on this. So, the so the again, the what is there in there provided as a standard for us to measure and looking at the fruit is based on, okay, someone claims to be a prophet. Now, we don't actually have that here, but let's say we did. Let's say we did. Let's say this person, it claims to be a prophet, and they're preaching this gospel, which is, um, hey, Jesus came and he atoned for everything, so you can do whatever you want. You're fine doing this thing and that thing. What does that lead to? What are the fruits of that? Um, I think it may not be something that again, you want to look at something that is falsifiable. Maybe you don't have the evidence instantaneously to be able to do that. Maybe you have to wait and observe. Again, um, not everything is going to necessarily be cut and dry, and there is a need for discernment. I mean, these are spiritual things we're talking about, but if you want to talk about just sort of concrete stuff, I mean, I think it's it's actually, you know, again, there is question is what is the what is the longer term impact? What is what is the effect that it has? And it sounds like it sounds like utilitarianism. It sounds like you're pointing to I wouldn't even just go, well, I think outcomes reflect something. So, so you were saying, whom did the uh, the uh, uh, LDS, whom did they bring to Christ? Americans. So allow me to Catholic to as a non-Catholic. You're incor you're you're patently incorrect if you're limiting it to that. No, I'm saying mostly. I mean, I wasn't Catholic before joining the church. He's giving one sample set. He's giving one sample set as an example. He who had a rougher time, the Catholic Church in South and Central America, or uh, the Mormons in the US? If if you don't like the term Mormons, I don't use it disparagingly. I know that's a No, there's a difference. I actually, for the reason that people find that term, they shy from it. I warmly embrace it. The formal corporate structure of the Mormon faith. I'm just saying from my end, it I equate them. So don't take it as an offense. LDS, whatever. Who do you think had more problems? Who had the harder thing to deal with? The people who were burning children alive, who were eating hearts, stabbing their penises, and putting it on paper and burning it, or Protestants? Now, I know it's not that much of a difference, but it's still I would argue that the still the case that the Catholic Church had to deal with a much more difficult challenge in Central and Southern uh uh America than the the the LDS had in the in the United States. Uh, I mean, more fruit, the ones who went from, you know, I don't know. I don't know what the exact difference is. We accept that if I may try to parapel Michael was Adam incarnate or something that part or trying to convince the people who were eating hearts to stop doing it and worship Christ, even if it's a faulty way. I think the discrepancies that were closed between the two. It still doesn't also, Posh, it

Still doesn't tell us the standard. So when I asked these guys, what's the standard? What's the stand? Hold on. What's the standard between a true prophet and a a false one?

Dennis said the outcomes that they produce. I gave an example as well as Posh that uh people who are uh Satanists, people who are of all different backgrounds could produce in the world certain outcomes that fit your criteria. So there must be something more between Joseph Smith being a true prophet and someone else being a false one.

Let's say I declare myself a prophet right now. Yeah. Can you falsify it against Joseph Smith? Let's say I'm a prophet and I'm actually going up against Joseph Smith and I say, "You know what? That guy's sketchy. How are you going to falsify from the LDS and Mormon position that I'm a that I'm actually a false prophet or a how are you going to affirm I'm a true one?"

So, so the the the honest answer is I at least from my perspective, I don't think I could do it instantaneously. You might get up and say, "Hey, I'm a prophet." And somebody else might get up and say, "I'm a prophet." And I might believe somebody else yet still is a prophet. And what do we do? We see what you do. We have to observe. And I think once you put yourself into the space of claiming to be a prophet, the dynamics change. It's different from you or me or anybody normal being uh preaching, speaking, talking within whatever context, teaching people, bringing people to Christ. But once you put yourself into the position and claiming claiming authority, I think claiming authority changes the dynamics. And I don't think you can successfully navigate claiming the authority of a prophet unless you actually have it long term.

Um, that that tells me that hold on. That tells me, Dennis, that there's an amount of time that's necessary. Even if I granted you an amount of time necessary, it doesn't tell me how you determine. It just tells me that you might determine if I have some time. What would he have to do in that span of time for him to be disqualified? Again, the we're talking about things that are perhaps make prophecies. Should I make prophecies that are come true? Materialize. How many prophecies should not everybody who predict I mean does every does every fortune teller who gets it right? I mean, we wouldn't call that a prophet.

Likewise, I will I willing I will tell you about Deuteronomy 30:es 1-5 which says that even if it comes to pass but leads you to another god uh is to be also you know not held in the highest regards. Uh but what I'm saying is it's not about get it says false prophets in the sense of not of God can get things right but a true prophet of God cannot get it wrong. Those are two very separate criteria. And what Jim Bob presented in his o opening argument is he gave a couple of uh the prophecies that failed to materialize, especially the ones with the walls and building a a temple in New Jerusalem in West Missouri and the plates. How many how many false ones does it require? For instance, Dennis and Joshua, how many do you get wrong? So you discard that. How many do you need?

So I'm going to roll back about 8 minutes. Posh, when you were talking about the [ __ ] I'm getting gish gallop. Rude. He never answered my question. I couldn't clarify it. Let me just pretend you're not talking for a second so I don't have to answer this crucial question that literally my entire theology. I'm sorry, Jim Bob. I I'm happy to let him roll it back. But my question here, go back in time. I would want to go back in time, too. Let's Let's have some fun. Joshua just like Joseph Smith back in time. Oh my god. Roll roll on back Joshua but but find it getting to the point. Just in 10 seconds we could have had it already cleared up.

Posh, when you were talking about the fruit between the Aztecs versus the Mormons, are you essentially equating the yield to the level of effectiveness or propheticness or whatever? because it sounded like you were saying turning people from human sacrifice to Christianity was a tougher cell than a Catholic to Mormonism for example. A much tougher cell. Okay, I understand. So Jim Bob to answer the question that No, I'm sorry. Go ahead.

Uh and in fact a lot of them perish in the process and and we can go all the way back to the apostles where even the people who were supposed to be worshiping God were torturing And poor St. Paul got beat up all the time by by by by Jews and Gentiles alike. Some of them got boiled in oil. There was it was barbaric. Yes. So to answer question, the one who got out of it best is St. John who died in exile on a on a on a camping colony. So that's that's about the best you can expect. But what I'm saying uh what trying to demonstrate there is bringing people to Christ. So you already had people pretty much focused on Christ. Obviously we as Eastern Orthodox would say that the people uh back then in in the United States were heterodox. But from the standards you seem to be presenting is that the fruits would be much riper than the fruits of, you know, splitting hearts out of of the chests.

Dennis, I want to answer Jim Bob's question because he asked it very specifically. Your question was, "What is being done during the time?" Is that correct? Is that the question that you're at? No. I'm sorry. What is the question that you would like asked? My question is how many false predictions false prophecies that don't come true um is required for you to go that's not that's a false prophet and and and to add to that because that was part of our opening statement uh I didn't provide like a prediction I gave an ongoing process that started from 1835 the translation of the book of Abraham so called to his death and it's nonsense like what we have left is nonsense and even if he did it I provided uh content errors especially these grave historical errors and did you hear where I conceded that I didn't push back on a lot of the conceded the false ones it's good it's and I'm not you get push back on stuff deny the inter let them let him answer how many false incorrect patterns that are prophesied is required for you to dis discard someone as a prophet.

I don't know what a specific number would be. Would it play into informing you whether a prophet whether or not a prophet is true or false? Absolutely. But you don't know the number. How many it seems like an amorphous question. I'll try to give you as an answer as I can because how go ahead talk. So I would I'd throw in here that I think it again it matters sort of where it's leading you to again kind of trying to apply that standard of what is the fruit of the work of this particular prophet and I go back to the example of Jonah he prophesies destruction is going to come to Nineveh it doesn't come because what the people repent the work that he did even though the prophecy doesn't come true but the work is borne good fruit it's conditional right we would agree that the conditional again the prophet is not about necessarily again he's not about giving you spoiler spoilers for real life he is about saying what God wants you to hear I understand but Dennis but the problem is you're using an example and it's a two quote fallacy to say oh look back at the other prophets and using ai conditional scenario if this then that is not this is not the same as saying uh the hold on hold on a second the ones that we listed aren't conditional they are states statements of fact this will occur And it did not. Not if then, but this will. We're asking you a simple question. If you guys can't tell me at what level, at what at what number of incorrect prophecies you determine someone to be a false prophet, you can't actually affirm who is a true prophet based on that being one of the attributes.

I don't think you're going to like this answer, but it could be as little as one. It's very short. The only thing you've left could be as basically it wouldn't you've left us with the nothing. But if uh we don't have all the Mormons, you know, overdosing on fent uh then, you know, you can't disprove it. If you're just going to talk about the fruits, no one thinks Mormons are all just a bunch of degenerates uh going well. It's more than just being it's more than just a distinction between being degenerates. I mean, if you look at, you know, Utah versus, you know, the rest of the country, you know, you have children growing up in intact families, you know, at a 20% higher rate. You know, there's a there's a significant disparity. There's a significant disparity between how we live. there's a significant disparity between what's going on amongst us as a people versus the rest and how we're kind of weathering this storm here in the west where we again I think you know if we were discussing a different topic I think everybody here would probably could agree unanimously on certain things like about the importance of the family for example you know the we have an abundance of information nowadays that all this kind of dangerous antisocial behavior is overwhelmingly coming out of places or coming from people who grow up in broken families.

This is this is irrelevant. This is irrelevant. No, because we're talking. No, because because you can live that way without Joseph Smith, right? Knowing Joseph Smith, right? Allow me to to answer this. There's a problem if when you have something that's niche. We have had Tatalian defect to narcissism because they were harsher when it came to fasting. uh because he thought well they are truer because they're so harsh when it came to self-restriction. Um the thing is that Mormonism is still pretty niche. Anything that becomes mainstream is going to start becoming a trend and people who go into the trend just because it's a trend. It used to be the case that atheists were like the high IQ people. But the more that becomes the normal thing, it's just going to be picked up by osmosis. And that's that means that the worst part of the elements of of society are also going to have a level of that. It still doesn't tell you. It still doesn't tell us multiple metrics. By multiple metrics, like the Orthodox in the United States are pretty well educated and pretty well to do. Why? Because it's still niche in the United States. God willing, it won't be uh for long. Has nothing to do with the validity of of like dude. Exactly. But it doesn't mean you will go to Look, look, let me get it back to where you guys actually have to defend the position.

Okay. In Posh's opening statement, he mentioned the papyrus and your response was nuh-uh. Right. You said this is just false. Okay. There was a divided we live a better family life. So therefore, he wasn't a bad prophet. So that's the thing. So, so, so if Joseph Smith, you know, went to a farmers market and bought some Egyptian paper and nobody knew what it meant and he went went home under a candle light, drew some some stuff on it and started interpreting it even though no one else could affirm or deny what he's interpreting and he comes up with this entire manuscript or whatever and it turns out later that it's false. Is that a red flag to you or how how are you going to explain that away given that you're calling him a true prophet?

So, I mean, from my from my standpoint, I I'd be lying if I said it never gave me pause, that I didn't look at it and say, "Okay, hey, look here here's this thing and this is sort of the the general opinion of, you know, Egyptian Book of the Dead, etc., etc., and this and what these papyrus are." Um at the same time I have a recognition that again and when we talk about it we when we affirm you know who is the prophet we the terms we throw out we say prophet seer and revelator and and part of that is again the idea that somebody can uh somebody in that station will see what others of us don't see in these things. Now that may be sound kind of simplistic. It may sound very self- serving um and I get that but again you are we are dealing with um did Joseph Smith misinterpret Egyptian burial text? Yes or no? I think it was far worse than misinterpreting. One at a time please. I think it was far worse than misinterpreting. He played fill in the dots with it as he filling in the dots. Okay. And then you sir Yes. in the suit. Did he misinterpret it? I I don't believe he was misinterpreting it. I believe he was bringing forth something else that he was intended to bring forth. Oh, so he just freestyled what he thought it You said he was in I wouldn't say freestyle. When you say you mean by God? Yes. That's that's who the the the office of a prophet and what he's bringing forth. I appreciate that. That's what I said. Why I said in the opening statement that even if I granted to you that he there was a whole thing sure where even though the papyrie don't match up or anything the faximiles are forged. Sure. Sure. Sure. I understand that that the content drawn from it is legitimate and I brought up so I will bring it up again. Yeah. He says he's from the ore of Caldesh or Calaldanss, right? The this name would not appear until more than a millennium later. Why would Abraham with his own hand write that? Why would he claim Egyptus was the source for the name Egypt claim it to the wrong language? It doesn't. Egyptus isn't even the the word for for forbidden in uh sur which is the language that the calaldian you saying God got the language wrong Joshua on multiple levels. He got multiple languages wrong. And I even added to it the fact that the the things that started with a e like egyptus would be in Latin. Uh those were changed to just an e in French before they got over metriculated over into English after the Norman conquest. So so so it's layer upon layer of wrong. But if we think about just someone who is a charlatan, which I believe he was, obviously we disagree. He just added us to uh Egypt, Egyptus, and said, "Well, sounds old timey." So yeah. Yeah. It means calaldans language that wouldn't be there for more than a millennium. and Abraham would not have spoken, but he wrote with his own hands that he was from the people from the town that added the moniker uh named after them.

So, did the Kinder plates give you pause, too? cuz I at least you admitted that the papyrus gave you pause, but uh it seems like the the Kinder Hook plates didn't give you pause and the uh the war of 1832 didn't give you pause or or um or 1843 um the government takeover didn't give you pause. So that's why we're still unsure because if you guys are affirming a true prophet versus false a false one, the only standard we heard from you so far is a guy brings people to Christ and you look at their fruits and see if they I don't know have family. They have a good family life. Yeah. It's like totally ambiguous.

So I'll throw something more out here. Um a couple of things. Uh, one is that so, well, I guess let me ask a question because you guys you're taking the standpoint that Joseph Smith was a charlatan. So, um, if you're taking that stand, so to that point, um, what do you guys assume is the truth regarding the Book of Mormon as a physical thing? Totally made up garbage. Um, yes, I I I I'm happy to open up France on that end if you'd like. But do you think it's physically existed? Do you think no manifestation? Okay. So, so to that point, well, I mean to that point, I mean, Joseph Smith wrote himself into Genesis. I disagree I disagree with the contents of the Book of of Mormon because it contradicts a lot of things. I I just so without getting into debating on on on stuff yet in the contents, but the mere existence of the Book of Mormon compared to any other sort of religious item, artifact claim that we know about and this as a result of how recent it was obviously, but you have it. I mean, if you open up a copy of the Book of Mormon, you have pretty close to the first page, you have the testimony of the three witnesses, testimony of the eight witnesses. Now, if you look at the history with each of those individuals, you had different people. These were not all Joseph Smith's like closest inner circle of buddies. These were people who many of them uh uh either came into contact with him later, some who uh many of whom had falling outs. Um many of whom at different times left the church. Uh some who returned uh later on, some who died separated or estranged from the church. um all in these different circumstances, every single one of them affirmed their testimony of the Book of Mormon to their dying day. Let me let me This is this is my that's better attested to by contemporary sources than anything else we can refer to. I mean, even we talk about the New Testament by best estimates it was written a generation after Christ. Strange definition of generation, but uh generation, how many years is that? We we We have methods of uh uh dating things through linguistics. For example, the song of the sea is obviously far less influenced by the paleo Hebrew that the original would have been written in the times of Moses and that is attested to the experts who who had to go, you know, run the gauntlet of having to translate it with its very archaic forms. If I ask any of you, I assume most people here are English speakers unless they have a, you know, the very peculiar way of defining fun. Uh, you can go and look up the original Beaolf and I assure you you will not get anything but a couple of letters that you might recognize. Aside from so there are ways of uh dating things. There is there are copies that say city of Dan which is now Helopoulos which would date it back to you know the Greek conquests because obviously it wouldn't have been called Helopolis before the Greeks. Now, if I was translating something though, if I was translating something and it used an and it used an archaic name, you wouldn't totally invalidate that translation because I would use a a name that someone might actually recognize instead, though. Would you Did you claim Would you claim it was written by your own hand now? And let's say uh no intention of doxing you. Let's say you were from Salt Lake City and someone named it renamed it sugar sea village uh and you you know and it wouldn't be renamed that for another 500 years and someone found your diary and you call it the sugar sea village. I mean if they can read it the way that it is I don't know if it would help them to to write it down whether they could. The problem also being let's even avoid that. Let's go to Abraham. I mentioned the fact he wasn't Abraham at the when he was in Egypt. He was Abram. Mhm. And Sarah was Sarai, right? She was my princess, not the princess. So why in that book? There is no way to reconcile it. If he is Abram, she is Sarai. If he is Abraham, she is Sarah. Sarah. So why is he Abraham? And it says the the the angel of the Lord saving him from being sacrificed by an Egyptian priest, which we have no records of Egyptians, you know, sacrificing humans as Why did he get that wrong, Dennis? Why did he get those names wrong? And and even if he got both of them to be Abraham and Sarah or Abram and Sarai, why is it one from the from one and the other from the other? Yeah. To me that looks like a a basic error in memory in Latin uh lapsus memorialia. Uh so why it's such charlatan, you know, behavior that I I don't know what to do with it. It's shortsightedness, right? It's like it's like he's not actually doing the work to do his In the Bible, it's called the of Caldes. So that's what Joseph Smith would have heard or read and that's what he would have written. The problem being that the historical anacronism there would not have been obvious to him if he was just going but if he had divine revelation then he would get it correct been no problem. Yeah. And by the way like this is the thing if you guys are okay with a prophet getting a bunch of things wrong. If two prophets get some things wrong and some things right, I still don't understand. You guys still haven't given me a distinction or any sort of methodology to determine who is a true prophet and who's a false prophet. If both a true prophet and a false prophet can get some things right and some things wrong.

So twoart question, two-part question. What part of drawing people to Christ as a true prophet and people away from Christ as a false prophet do you find unsatisfying? I'm not saying that it isn't. It sounds like that's been offered and you're not buying that as a definition. Something about that isn't I just gave you the Episcopalian uh example that people can draw people to Christ and push all sorts of sinful behavior. So obviously drawing people to Christ. Hold on. Hold on. Drawing people to Christ. Joshua assumes a personhood called Christ, right? First of all, some people don't believe Christ is God. Do you guys believe Christ is God? Yes. Okay. So, you believe in the Trinity? Not the Trinity. Oh, so he's not. He's God, but there's a God, a heavenly father. Okay. For without getting people, it's exactly like it's described there. Oh, guys, guys, this is insane. So if you draw people to Christ off with the premise that they could both draw people to Christ and away from Christ. Can you pick a two on that one? Joshua people draw drew people to Christ before Mormonism. What did Mormonism add based on I'm going to go back to my question that you said that a a person can draw people to Christ and also doesn't make them a prophet. I believe the other part of that if I may pos you said can draw them to Christ. you put and a and d push sin on them. Some version of that. If they are pushing sin on them and pushing them towards it, that makes them a false prophet. Okay. And so to tighten it up a little bit, if we were to say, I'm going to land a plane. I just need like 15 seconds. Yeah. Let let Joshua finish clarifying and then we'll come back. Just 15 seconds. True prophet brings people to Christ. False prophet pulls people away from Christ. Someone who makes false predictions is is is someone who makes false predictions. What? Okay.

So, let me appeal to your scriptures. Um, what do you think of infant baptism? Not much. Not valid. That just to very specifically address toast other when your scriptures calls it an abomination. Well, I'm trying to be polite. Well, I mean I I think Can you baptize a dead baby? Can you baptize a dead infant? No. So, two points on this. Mormons believe that underhos finish his thought. Let finish his thought. Age of accountability is eight. So, that's when we baptize. And any child and any child who dies prior to that is not in need of baptism. At least on you may not believe it but in terms of our belief system that is you would have to have died over the age of eight to require then the vicarious baptism and other ordinances. Why eight? Yes, I'll answer that for them. Uh you got that from the Catholics basically. So the Catholics decided we baptized early as a Catholic we don't do confirmation until the age of reason and many Protestants took that from there. So the entire thing uh the reasoning behind it is that they haven't developed the faculties to be able to consciously sin or whatever. So I would ask you what do you do with people who are mentally deficient? you try to evaluate and in many cases at least what I've seen personally baptize them no okay no I mean I mean I've seen a couple cases I I wasn't involved necessarily in like the decisions and stuff but where there were people who you know were determined that they couldn't do that then no actually we were doing euthanasia well so it's it's it's typically it's individualized and the premise of it is essentially Does the individual have the faculties to commit the prerequisite intention for sin? The topic of the debate is whether Joseph Smith is a false prophet. Okay. Then why did bring up infant baptism? I did because the Bible says he and his household were baptized. What do you think that means? And where do you draw this idea that you should have this rationalistic understanding of what you're getting into? Like the church has always had cateuman catechumans go through a period of understanding if they're adults. Like we you need to know what you're getting into. As far as the church is concerned, you're a communicant because you're a child of Christ and you're you're going to partake of his his body and blood. You you exccommunicate children. And apparently at least the Catholics I don't think are mad enough to excommunicate people who are who are mentally involved. Are you claiming that we are sorry just clarifying question are you claiming that purposely twisting it are you claiming that before you go Joshua I just I feel like we're outside of the scope. we're kind of bringing around the idea and and I'm okay with it because the conversation is flowing and I'm not going to tell you not to. I just want to bring your attention to that fact that we've kind of yeah this started from my question to Joshua and the other gentlemen that if if I don't have a distinction for what con constitutes a prophet and you say who anyone who br draws people to Christ well that actually requires a knowledge of who Christ is right which got into another claim. So if the if someone draws people to Christ, but they hold some sort of weird gnostic view that he's not God, why are we drawing people to Christ? Why would that be a measure of being a prophet if it's possible to draw people to Christ and have a perverted conception of Christ? Right? If you think giving up coffee and alcohol is difficult, you should check with the Gnostics. They make you look like degenerates. And I do want to give it back to Joshua because I did interrupt him. So is it your proposition posh then that the lack of baptism is resulting in an excommunication? Do are they allowed to partake in communion? So there's I believe a a fundamental difference that a a doctrinal foundation that is missing. We don't presuppose original sin. Thus for example as interesting as that is followed to its conclusion the the entailment on is that they don't need the baptism thus that so that's the premise on it is it's they couldn't possibly sin so they wouldn't need the baptism not they're going to hell so they're not going to get the scriptures say that the atonement of Christ is what grants them need no need look they want you talking about baptism and all of these important because to be initi Well, you better draw it back to Joseph Smith because they're getting away with a lot right now. He was then therefore preaching that you don't need to join the church. If you don't baptize children, you they're not part of the church. That's not true. That's not accurate. Well, and even more specifically, what makes them part of the church? If I may clarify the doctrine, so for example, like my 5-year-old daughter is a member of the church. She's a child of record, born in the covenant. What does that like this? Yeah. So, Dennis, I'll clarify. She was was born into it. Look, look, he gave the statement his 5-year-old was born into So, so my wife and I, so my wife and I were married and sealed in the temple. So, that is a little bit different thing than just a legal marriage. It's just you know till death do you part and everything. So that is a different thing and my children subsequently because we are sealed together as a family are then born within the covenant. So they have already they have are already a party to part of the ordinances. Okay. But obviously baptism is something where you make a covenant. When you are confirmed you make covenants. Hold on posh. Hold on. Hold on posh. Hold on. I just want to just now that you mentioned it. Was it revealed to Joseph Smith that polygamy was okay? Yes. Okay. It was revealed to him that they did it get altered later. Uh I wouldn't say that the doctrine was altered. We the the practice was restricted. So the revelation of God and the practice of Mormonism was restricted. I don't read God's mind. I can't even read. Was the revelation of God through Joseph Smith about polygamy retracted? No, it's still in the scriptures. Doctrine, you're not you're not allowed to do it, right? Well, I don't have the I don't have the authority to sanction a plural marriage. Why is it restricted if it was God's revelation to Joseph Smith to do it? An obligation. Not just a recommendation, an obligation. [Music] Question possesses authority to sanctional marriage. biblically like for us just like regular Christians let's call us uh do you think polygamy is allowed by the scriptures don't support for it yeah they do I mean the only thing the only thing I'm familiar with it and maybe you guys are are much better uh much better versed in scripture than I am uh but the only thing I can think of off the top of my head is you know the bishop must be the husband of one um which I know is in the New Testament which you know even that goes sort of goes contrary to you know uh clerical celibacy and everything but um but whatever the but we have Leviticus 18:18 have Deuteronomy 17 I can't remember which exact verse says if you have a king you do not allow him to multiply wives that that's like saying okay if someone's going to look for multiple wives is this guy Joseph Smith Multiple wives by the way that is so may answer Jim Bob's question if I recall Jim yeah well yes can I get the other question I just want to get I believe your question was why did it stop essentially is that correct well not why if it was revealed to Joseph Smith particularly because he's the true prophet that it's an obligation and it's a part of your Christian life to multiply your spouses and have a lot of women right H how is it that the revelation of God just suddenly got turned on its head just a couple, you know, some years later?

So, there's like three points on it. The most apologistic answer you'll get is that a lot of men died and that women needed men in order to own property and do things like that. So, the men took stewardship over the families. That's one of the answers you'll hear. The most pragmatic answer that you're going to hear is that in order for Utah to be admitted as a state to the United States, they had to give it up. That's an actual fact. LDS is Are you saying Hold on. one thing at a time. I thank you for answering. Hold on. Hold on. He answered a lot. He answered a lot, but he did say something in there that I'm just I want a clarification on is that is it the case that revelation from God uh through Joseph Smith, the true prophet, in how you ought practice um marriage can just change based on the worldly events. Is that is that how fickle Joseph Smith's revelatory system is? No. Oh, and I hate to use the word nuanced because I think it usually means there's [ __ ] but there's a few pieces to this, you know, I'll clarify. What's that? Sorry, go ahead. No. So, the the the revelation hasn't changed. It's still believed that polygamy is an eternal law, meaning after this life, that's still going to be a thing that happens. fundamentally the the there's a a piece of the Book of Mormon and a part of Mormon theology that you likely aren't familiar with that you know what is the Book of Mormon? The Book of Mormon is presented as a way to get closer to Christ and a way to live your life. The answer, sorry. Okay. Uh so, but the fact of the matter is kinds within it there's different advice, suggestions, stories, parables, all these good things. One of the lines is while you're in the way with your adversary, you make peace with them. And so if Utah, so when Utah is getting right about to get statethood around that time, the Mormons had already faced a genocide in Missouri. They had already been facing all sorts of persecution across the plains and they the decision was made that they were no longer going to practice it at the time. And if you're going to really keep harping on this, I have to ask, what do you make of biblical polygamy?

Oh, I'll answer that. I'm the Bible guy. Uh apparently it it's it's very bad. So you you have you have the Lord approach Abraham uh with Sarah and when he says you will have a son by Sarah, she laughs and he says you will have it and his name will be Isaac which means laughter because she laughed at the idea that in her advanced age before that he goes for Hagar by Zara'sation Let's say uh God's not happy with that. They have Isaac. Isaac loved Rebecca. This man didn't go for anyone one else despite what Mormon scriptures say. Uh and they have Jacob and Esau, right? Jacob, as we know, goes with uh Rachel and Leia and then they go into a baby of because he was first tricked into marrying the wrong one. And then they become rivals because that's what you want, right? Good family values means you have rivals apparently. uh and then they engage their own female servants and then you get the children and then that become like the 12 patriarchs of of Israel. So then we let's go to the next big one which is David who basically ruins everything with his polygamy. And then we get to Solomon who not only like it was a breath of bloody fresh air that he married just multiple women had sex with concubines and everything. He built literal temples to demons. So if you're going to go for well this person in the Bible did it and I'm starting from the idea well if it's in the Bible he's like a good lad. I don't know where anyone would get that idea because the Bible you you can't go to a point in the Bible at least in the Old Testament just slam your finger anywhere on any page and go five verses up or down and not find someone doing something absolutely bloody reprehensible. So to summarize you essentially say the Bible's cautionary tale against polygamy. Yeah. Well, polygamy would also pervert marriage to the church as well. It's it's all Jesus is asked about marriage. I don't think this is about marriage to the church, but it sounds like an interesting Well, when you get married, are you married to a church in Mormonism? Hold on. Let me ask Joshua. When you get married, right, are who are you married? What? And and who are you marrying? All right. So, I'm going ask this and I mean this just out of respect. I'm going to try to answer the question clearly in one shot. If you got questions, comments, great. Go for it. Dennis and I actually are part of the same covenant. This is an attempt to answer the question. When Mormons get sealed in the temple, they get sealed not just to their partners, but to the whole of the church. And so, it isn't marrying the church as much as it is an individual. It's a covenant between God and all of the other members within that um within the within the ceiling. So, okay. It's not. So, if that's the case with Yeah. But that if that's the case, right? So if if back to marriage, back to the revelation of Joseph Smith saying, "Well, guys, guys, I'm getting a lot of ladies. Let's make it a thing where I could marry them all." Huh? I'm getting a lot of attention here. He made that a thing, right? He actually said it was revelatory, right? He said it was an obligation, right? Then Mormonism says years later, well, no, we're going to change that. And Josh says, because of the conditions of the times, right? So, you're going to go back on God's revelation and alter God's revelation based on the conditions of the times. Now, if someone said to you guys, "Let's bring back Hold on. Hold on. If God Hold on a second, hold on a second. Hold on a second. If someone came in and said, "Let's bring polygamy back." How could you argue against it? Well, it depends on who's saying it. But also, but more importantly, someone's a self-proclaimed prophet, which you guys have no stand for. President of So, well, I wouldn't say I have no standard, but um but we have a we have a succession of prophets. So, so we don't have an issue necessarily identifying a prophet right now. But to the again taking a step back again, you you keep sneaking in there obligation that this was an obligation. And I certainly think there were some people back um you know probably in like you know in that heyday of when when uh when polygamy was practiced in Utah that referred to it as an obligation. I don't recall that necessarily coming from Joseph Smith and he talked about um well the revelation I guess is really just the the section 132. But in any event, um you know, how we are expected to practice our religion and and what you are what you do um does change based on the circumstances of the world in which you exist. The world dictates your theology. Well, not theology. His words, not mine. There's a difference. Weird. That's a vow. That sounds like Joseph Smith. All right. Well, so I mean quite simply the um again to to get it real simple, it's again a question of who has authority to sanction such a thing. It's not that it's removed from the theology. It's still a part of theology. I know it's not emphasized obviously um for and you can make of that what you want, but it's not something that's been removed. So Joseph Smith had the authority, right? Right. Because this is about Joseph Smith. Okay. Who has the authority right now? Hold on. Posh, posh, let me hold on. Who has the authority right now? Russell M. Nelson. And how did how do you determine that he has a proper authority against anyone else who claims authority in the Mormon church? He received the authority from the Well, he received it through those who were in authority prior to him and he's the senior apostle was in clarify that one just a little bit. So, do you agree with that? Well, so I'll we'll do a little uncover behind the dirty scenes of all of the various Mormon sects as opposed to the other sword. So there's schisms within the Mormon faith. There you go. I know. I So there's schisms about where the authority comes from. There's one one set of theology that says they believe that it was Joseph Smith's children. That's the Community of Christ. I believe or the reformed LDS. Then there's the current Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints headquartered in uh Salt Lake City from Joseph Smith that went to Brigham Young. And then there's a very clear line of secession and whoever it is that has so then the basically there's one mantle, one prophet and there's the the way the secession works on it is if the prophet dies so it's until they die. If the prophet dies, then from the pool of the apostles, the twel apostles, they select the most senior one to be the prophet next. You mean president? Well, that's another title, isn't it? Okay. But I was under the impression that the 12 quarum were also prophets. Yes. Yes. Yes, that's why I asked that's why I asked for but it is only the senior apostle who who holds all the keys and authority to exercise all the keys etc. Right. But but I I read this down in my notes uh that uh Joshua I believe you said this. Yes, you did. Um I linearized between the two. You said you got the laying on of hands uh in terms of succession. That's what we in orthodoxy and in Catholicism they would say the same thing is what we call apostolic succession. It's comparable to that, isn't it? Yeah. So I'll explain it very very clearly. Um so the within the Mormon faith, you go to church Sundays, you participate, you worship the the elders, the men, they'll meet, they'll study, and through the the process of being a faithful member eventually um uh or under, you know, as you progress, it's typically based off of age at this point, but you'll you'll interview and if you meet the standards, then you can have uh be ordained as an elder. And that line of authority starts if you go um in this case. So the the going all the way to the Bible, Peter, James, and John laid their hands on Joseph Smith. Joseph Smith Jr. specifically, then on Oliver Cowry, and then so on and so on. And back to the Bible. Yeah. It lays his hands on Joseph Smith in the Bible. No. So using the biblical reference, so the the foundation of the moment. Yeah. So So yeah, but let me just land it. Allow me. I understand what you mean. Like uh you I don't think you do. That's okay. Go ahead. Okay. Sorry. But allow me to summarize what I think you were saying so we can move it on. Uh you're basically saying I'm not my point wasn't a anyone you lay your hands on like there is a process, right? There is a there are things to specific ritual and whatever. Exactly. But uh that's uh my point was more towards um where do you trace that before Joseph Smith because Christ says my the gates of hell will not prevail against his church. Right? So, I was answering that if we're jumping from one to I don't know because I as far as I could see from the Mormon scriptures uh that it would be the Gentiles once they receive pure from the Jews uh will pervert things. Um I challenge that as well at some other point perhaps. But uh you so maybe at at the earliest we would have to say that once the apostles die, right, we have a corruption. So you would agree on that one, right? So how does the church survive? How does the church survive? Uh or do you perhaps mean I'll tell you what I would come to church. Is that a church? So whether you agree with it or not, I'm going to tell you what the doctrine is. Maybe you reject the doctrine, maybe you don't. This is what it is. The doctrine is that Peter, James, and John were ordained by Jesus Christ. We would agree on this. And the the doctrine of the Mormon faith is that they appeared to Joseph Smith and ordained him. So to frame it simplistically, Joseph Smith received the priesthood authority as a restoration from So when you're referring to the apostasy, we would call that a time of apostasy. The the Mormon story, the Mormon theology is that Joseph Smith restored that through that um through that same line of authority. Does that make sense? The line Yeah. But who who gave him make sense? But who gave him a who gave him the authority? Who gave him the authority? Just a moment. I have to ask because this is what a lot of Protestants say about the reformation, right? But I would say what where's the church between the death of the apostles and this revelation to Joseph Smith. It's dead. It's dark. That's why it had to be restored. That's that's the theology. The the gates of hell. Whoops. So, you you appear to be Yeah. Yeah. Well, we can hear him. Just disconnect. Activate and act. Did you activate and activate it again? Yeah, it's okay. It's It happens sometimes. No worries. How is that not the gates of hell prevailing? I'm sorry. What's the question? How is that the gates of hell not prevailing? If so, as far as we orthodox are concerned, good to have you back. As far as the orthodox are concerned like we have the apostolic fathers that's the name given to like the first generation after the apostles like your saint uh uh Ignatius apostolic with an or e a apostolic not apostolic okay apostolic yes with an a

Uh, so we have, you know, St. Paul. We have St. Ignatius of Antioch. We have all of these fathers who were students of the apostles themselves. Yeah. And it goes on up until today. But, uh, so I, I, I, I'd like to know why exactly were they wrong, and it's dead, as Joshra put it. Uh, whereas, uh, apparently it would be restored and still not qualify as the church being prevailed against by the gates of hell. Or also, also, Posh, how do you, epistemic question here, how do you know it died, and when, according to your own doctrine, except accepting the idea, well, it disagrees with us, because that's secular logic. So I probably wouldn't say that it was dead, but I would say that clearly there was, in the initial time period, still the body of the apostles who led the church. They taught people, like you mentioned, and so you had an, an, a generation of, of a lot of people who learned the gospel from them. But ultimately, as they were spread out, that, that structure leading the church ceased to exist at some point. Yeah. Yeah.

But the thing is, why, hold on, hold on right there. Right. You affirm an early church, right? From, from the apostles. Right. Okay. Christ, Christ established a church. He has an apostolic college, right? He goes and teaches his, his teachings. How is it that you call back to them, and their theology is inconsistent with Joseph Smith's theology? So, it's not agree with that claim. What? So, they're not Trinitarians? Absolutely not. Again, the apostles weren't Trinitarians. Again, I go back to, I, I'll keep it simple. Go to Acts, uh, seven. Steven's vision. What does he see? He doesn't see, you know, Christ and his Father as one. He sees them as separate individuals. It is consistent with what Joseph Smith describes in his vision and is consistent with what we understand. So, to go back to Jim Bob's question, to clarify it very specifically here, the Mormon belief isn't that the church just all of the sudden died. It's the teachings of Christ were spread out and eventually, it's, it's as if there, it's not that it was inconsistent with genetic entropy for a theology, more like a half-life, meaning the doctrines became deteriorated over time, and so there needed to be a restoration. So, what you're saying is, you can't, you can't point to a moment when it died. It's like, more specifically, what I would say, more specifically, what I would say, like what we were talking about succession within the church was the fact that, you know, each of the apostles are called and set, but, you know, whoever is the senior apostle, then, then serves in the leadership position. But at a certain point, each of the apostles were ordained, they were set apart separately with their own specific authority, and at a certain point, there ceased to be apostles with that authority and those keys. Yeah.

But when, yeah, but you got, you can't make that claim unless you tell me a when, which you're contradicting your, your partner here, because, hold on, hold on a second. Just let me, let me finish for a second. Church. Hold on. You can't make the claim something died if you can't tell me a date it died. So, you're appealing to mystery. You're basically saying, in the past, there was a church, and it was true, but they weren't Trinitarians. Of course, because that agrees with me. Second, you're saying there was a moment in history when it died, but you can't tell me when it died. So, you can't tell me it died, or, or it was dormant. If you can't tell me when it was dormant, was it dormant before the answer? Whenever you're ready, I'll, I am trying to give you the answer. I, I can't give you the exact date because I don't have, like, the dates of all the apostles and when they were martyred and everything. I don't have all that memorized. But I would say when there ceased to be any of the, uh, apostles, either original or who were set apart and, and added to the body afterwards, like after Judas and stuff. So, wait, wait, wait, wait. Let's, no, let's, let's go with that. Um, you're, clear, hold on, hold on. I want to clarify what I'm saying because I didn't claim that the church. What I'm saying is that the authority, the authority and those keys, those, that authority was at that point lost. Now, what I think happens, going from there, is a slow, hold on, evolution. You think that, but I, you're just claiming it, right? You're basically doing a historical and imaginary, uh, imaginative, imaginary, hold on, hold on, let me talk. So, you just said when the apostles died, the tradition, the holy tradition of the church and everything they taught died out too, right? No, you just said that. No, I did not say that. So, when did the church go dormant? Death. Not death, but cat, you know, they're, they're, they're comatose. When did the church, from your view, go? Again, what I'm telling you is that it is the authority, the authority to lead the church, the authority to do the, the full authority. Like when we talk about the keys being given to Peter, all that, that sort of thing, that is lost at a certain point. When, certain point doesn't tell me anything, dude. I've already told you that. When all the apostles are dead, the apostles are dead, that authority is lost. Oh. Oh, so the apostles didn't teach anybody? They didn't teach anybody. No, they teach them. But they didn't. Oh, it's lost. It's, it's not. But for example, say, say again, Timothy, like St. Paul points. Okay. He knows what he's doing. I mean, if it depends on if he's anointing, if he's anointing him as, uh, as, and setting him apart as an apostle, that's one thing. Is he going to anoint him and set him apart as a bishop, you know, like, like the Catholic tradition is, like the Catholic tradition is that, okay, Peter is the, Peter is the, the leader among the apostles, and so through them, they go to Linus and Anacletus and Clement and all that, um, and to, to begin the papal succession. Um, my response to that, and so similar to all the others, is that, well, yes, Linus was set apart to serve as a bishop of Rome, but he was not one of the apostles. And so, that again, that authority, that organization leading the church ceased to exist. Okay.

Do you affirm, do you affirm heresies then? Say again. Do heresies exist? Yes. Okay. How did you determine that if, if that would occur during the, the comatose time of the church? How would you, how would you determine? You do the best you can. You do the best you can. What are you gonna do? Are you serious? I'm sorry. That's, that's just self-serving to the point of absurdity. I mean, literally, literally, I know it's a meme. Just do the best you can. That's a heresy. That's a heresy. It's basically like Islam, bro. Like, I mean, look at what was going on in those councils. I mean, it was as political as it was anything else in terms of the arguments. And how's that, how does that debunk anything? If, if theology debunking anything, what I'm trying to tell you, had disagreements because at a time, let me explain, let me explain, let me explain what I'm trying to get at. Jim, the, I didn't hear that. The leaders, without the consistent leadership, top down, of the body of the apostles, you started to have those disagreements within the church, and then you started to have these sects that were broken out. And again, certain things are declared heresies, and I think obviously some are legitimately more than others. But where the fact is, by what authority? That's what I asked you. By what authority do you? No, hold on. What's name one heresy you hold? One heresy that, that you hold is a heresy. Yeah. Um, I guess the Marcionites were heretics, you know. Um, if we want to go, why from your view, they aren't actually. Go ahead. Unless, unless your claim, they rejected that Christ was the God of the, rejected Christ had in connection with the Old Testament was, uh, unless, unless I'm confusing them with a different group. Um, they rejected all the other gospels except for Luke, which then they modified. Um, oh, they modified scriptures like Joseph Smith. Well, what's the definition of, again, yeah, on that one. Heresy, I get to talk about etymology. Uh, heresy, by the way, is more akin to the Latin, uh, concept of sect, right? It's not just wrong opinion. Say the heresy of Horus, the heresy of so-and-so. We mean akin to what these people. Uh, so it would be people who had broken off from the church because of a certain teaching and have started off, uh, a new thing. It does not mean being wrong on something. Okay. So, for example, one heresy would be that women could hold the priesthood. Sure. Sure. That's an ordained women movement that started a while back. Or that Christ isn't God, like denying the Trinity. Anything that breaks apart from the church based on the idea that you should have women, uh, uh, clergy. Yeah, that, that will be a heresy. And then we would call that position. We've got so much common ground. No, no, no, no. Here's the thing, Joshua. We're asking about this because if heresy is established not only after the dead period, right, but it's established by Trinitarians who are explicitly Trinitarians. You're appealing to heresies. You're appealing to a normative authority of a church that existed before Mormonism. And they hold a position that's counter to Joseph Smith's theology. And so you have a problem here. There's an inconsistency and you can't reconcile it. Well, there's an inconsistency with the whole premise of arguing Trinity. And I'm going to, before I delve into that, and I'll get real specific, and I think Posh is going to be able to educate me on what the EO take on it is. Let me ask you a question. There's two universes. One universe, I wake up in the morning tomorrow and I believe in the Trinity. The other universe, I wake up and I don't. How do I, as a Christian, live differently one way or the other? What is the difference? Uh, go ahead. No, Bob, answer me this. How is it different? Let's say I, is it different? Do you take the Eucharist? Do you take the, Is it a Sunday? Today is not Sunday. No. Uh, the day, let's make the day Sunday. Do you go and take, do you go and partake in the Eucharist at, at an Orthodox church that day? I would not. No, you don't. Right. That would be a different day for you, right? Wouldn't it? Yeah. Exactly. I'm sorry, Joshua, but what you're doing is what the atheists say. What can a Christian do? No. You could turn it into Christopher Hitchens. Not offering it as that. I'm curious fundamentally. I just told you, you participate in the sacraments. I just answered your question. I decided tomorrow I'm going to go bring back the revival of Joseph Smith polygamy. I'm going to go get me nine women. We're going to go off in the desert. Nobody could tell you you're wrong based on different than if I stuck in this monogamy world. And so there would be a difference in the way that I would carry my day out. Yeah. You'd be no longer, you'd be no longer heretical. I'm sorry, Jim Bob. I have to give, like, a comprehensive EO response. Uh, from our theology, from our metaphysics. No, no one can ever do anything good unless it is from God. They can be atheists, they can be Satanists. You know, a Satanist could every so often, you know, like give money to someone who's poor, right? We believe such things are only possible by a person, an individual hypostasis, cooperating with God's love, with God's mercy. All evil in the world can only be done by cooperating with the demons. So, from our perspective, you can do very well while being nominally, you know, outside of the church, and we would argue that to whom much is given, much, much will be required. So, we Orthodox don't think we're better people. We believe we have, we have been given so much that we are actually under higher standards of, of, [Music] Goodness gracious, we're judged by. Yes, we're judged by a higher standard because we've been given so much. Especially me, I'm cradle Orthodox, right? I was born into it. So, I have, I have no excuse whatsoever. Um, God punished me by giving me a horrible facial hair. But, uh, when we approach these things, it's not about us saying, you Mormons are scum because you're not, uh, you're children of God. Every single thing any one of us here present, whether on the panel or, or, or in the chat, uh, have, every good we've done is because we've cooperated with God. That's our metaphysics. So, the fact that someone who is wrong can do good is not a problem. This is the essence-energy distinction. If, yes, Joshua. I'm glad you're inquiring to Orthodoxy. Please make your way through my liturgy. I, I hope to see you. I would love it. You can come right on my channel. Make you happy. I'm so glad that you're happy. Okay, good. I've got to say, Orthodox, all you Eastern Orthodox out there, I don't know how you did it, but somehow you made arguing over Christianity on the internet interesting, and that's a big W. You're welcome. Well, I'm, I'm, what, and stuff, but, uh, so back, get back about the Trinity. It is the truth. Okay. The fact that someone is away from the truth does not mean that they're a bad person. Unless, not saying it does. I'm just saying, what's the difference? I wake up tomorrow morning. I put on, let me, let me just lay the scene real quick. Takes like 45 seconds. Not even. I wake up. I put on my pants. I go make eggs. I make toast. I brush my teeth. And the whole time I think God, Holy Ghost, and Heavenly Father are three separate beings, separate universe. I'm like, "No, they're all one, right?" Then I die. I brush my teeth. Boom. That's that. They're with God. God's like, "No, you believed the wrong thing." Or so, either at judgment or in my day-to-day, what is actually different? And is just, who, who says that? Who says that if you died, you, God will like quiz you on me? No, I'm trying to understand the distinction. This is my favorite argument against flat-earthers. If I agree with you, what is different about my life? The distinction, Joshua, is that you allow me. Allow me. Uh, a Muslim gets up, puts on his like, gay, whatever that thing is, dress thing is, uh, cooks eggs and like turkey bacon, and, loser flirting with, that's a separate issue. As long as it tastes like bacon, but it's not. He has one wife and God won't know. They're allowed for which he beats regularly. They're so Jewish. Sorry. As Allah would want. But, uh, let's say he, he's like one of those who doesn't like, he's one of the chosen few. But he does that and he dies. Do you think he goes to hell? You don't want to ask a Mormon that question. Mormons basically believe there's five levels of heaven and no matter how bad you are, unless you're openly defiant, even seven, they, they beat you in layers of, they have more super. What's the bottom layer like? Because I have a feeling a lot of us are going there. It's where we're going to be comfortable. But, I mean, what we understand about, unless you are someone who has like, you were talking about Posh, about, you know, you have a greater knowledge and, and this is really only the, the worst of the worst is really reserved for someone who has a full knowledge and then rejects it or turns against it. Otherwise, in that, you're probably still going to end up somewhere that's better than here. But, but you see, to you, that is like a legal consideration. For us, Easterners, it's not. For us, uh, you cooperate with God or you cooperate with demons. Right? That's, that's it. I love the binary nature of it. That's the reality. I think that's, that's sort of breaking though, the relationship between, like, the relationship between God and man. Like, like again, you know, go back to another part there in, uh, in, uh, oh man, I got to grab it again. In Matthew 7, further back, you know, which of, or what man there is of you, whom if his son ask bread, he will give him a stone? Or if he asks a fish, will give him a serpent? If then ye, being evil, then how and know how to give good gifts unto your children, how much more your Father which is in heaven give good things to them that ask him. We, again, we are not, we don't come from a perspective that, again, even if you're wrong and you do your best you can over here in this life, that you are condemned. There is a path, and it's not, you say, well, you are following the wrong prophet and you are thereby condemned. Um, who said that? Well, I mean, you said you're either serving, you said you're either serving God or you're serving demons. That doesn't, that does not, yeah, that's what I said. But what I said, either, either of the two of you, any good you've done, you've done it by cooperating with God, independent of whether you were atheists or Muslims or, God forbid, Episcopalians. Uh, any good done ever by anyone was only by cooperating with God. That's the Eastern Orthodox position. I never said you're Mormon, so you're going to hell and getting. I will say that though, right? Who ain't going to take her? And I'm Mormon, so I know I'm not going to hell. It doesn't exist. Let's just scare people into behavior. We got something better for you than that. I've got something better for all of you. Uh, the chat, number one, the chat has finally paid for me to have my White Claw. It was torture. I was waiting for the goal to be hit. Thank you. We can start drinking. Yes, you may absolutely start drinking. Um, I want to, because I feel like we're, we're not getting anywhere. I mean, we, anyways, but I want to go ahead and maneuver and hit the open panel and see if we can have some more fun with that and, and get a little further into the, the conversation. You just poured a beard. You just poured a beer. You're staying. Yes. For a beer. Yes. So, you, you've got me for a beer, but it's literally 5:16 a.m. for me. After this beer, I'm, I'm gone. You know how many people you can convert by staying an hour? You could become a prophet. A true prophet. Yeah. Who wants multiple wives? Like, heavens, sounds like a threat, right? I never understood that. It's already enough to deal with one, right? Um, okay. So, if gentlemen, you'll oblige me, we'll move into our closing statements and then we'll read some of these super chats off and I'm going to go through 10 and up just so we can maneuver through them a little quicker for now. Um, I will read the rest of the super chats throughout open panel. So, don't be alarmed. I will get through them. Um, just not yet. Um, so Joshua, if you would like to start with your closing statement, please. Unsurprisingly, we've arrived at the conclusion where we have different definitions and different beliefs. The important thing here is that we're all arguing over Christ. What a great thing. Thousands of years later, he's done, um, he lived as a great example. We learned a lot of lessons. I think it's really exciting for me. I mean, I think it's easy to see there's a lot of debauchery and degeneracy out there. Um, but, you know, I think I think there is always going to be an interest in folks, right, caring about their soul and wanting to grow closer to God. And I, uh, I, I've enjoyed the panel. It sounds like we've actually covered some interesting things here. Um, I don't know how much progress we made other on the, on the, was Joseph Smith a false prophet? The definition Jim Bob started with. I conceded. He said there were, if there's a false prophecy, it's a false prophet. I agree there were false prophecies. Under his definition, there's that. So, there's really not a whole lot left me in the bones. And I think that, uh, or meat left for us to fight over, and I think that, uh, anyway, many other interesting things to talk about. And with that, I'm done. Perfect. You, Dennis. I love it. Short and sweet. Dennis, to you. Yes. All right. Um, so I made the point at the beginning, um, and we never really revisited it about, uh, whether or not there should be more prophets before we even get into Joseph Smith. Should there be more prophets? Would there be more prophets? I make the argument that by Christ giving us a, a metric to measure to discern a false prophet from a true prophet, that means that there would be more prophets. Um, and, you know, at the end of the day, what we're coming here and talking about is, is still religious matters. And for all the discussion and all the reasoning, and, and I haven't even touched on some things about like, well, you know, this or that thing that was restored and how, you know, pointing out like, you know, how temple rituals resembled like the imagery that's in these like ancient mosaics in, you know, churches from like the four or 500s, um, I'm thinking of the ones in Ravenna, um, but the none of that is a substitute for for spiritual witness and spiritual discernment. And I think that none of us is going to have, as a practical matter, going to investigate and be able to, you know, in the same practical way as the apostles did, you know, be with Christ, witness his, uh, his atonement, his, his death, and then see his resurrection. For most of us, we're not going to get an experience like that. We are given the, the Holy Spirit. We have access to these powers God has left for us. And that is, at a certain point, that's what you lean on. And you're trying to discern a, a true prophet, a false prophet. Um, there is, there, there is a certain dependency on that. None, none of us here knows Christ by, or has come to a belief. If we do have a belief and a real testimony in Christ, um, and what he has done for us, we don't have that through physical, natural, logical means. No matter what anybody here is going to say, there is a dependency on the spiritual here. And, um, you know, think what else, I mean, that, that, I think sums it up. Perfect. Thank you, Dennis. Posh, to you. Yes. Uh, thank you to everyone for participating. Um, when I started off my opening, I, I said, we have no reason to expect a prophet because it doesn't match with what prophets were meant to do in the Old Covenant, and the New Covenant that was promised was everlasting, and it lasts two today, and is ongoing. So, I invite everyone to join the Orthodox Church. But, um, the idea that we would have a, a prophet, and that we could gauge whether that prophet was false or true, cannot be reduced to whether they have a nice family life, because all sorts of external factors can affect that. And we can't go for a niche that is still a niche, probably won't become anything other than that, um, and just say, "Well, there you go." Um, as Jim Bob pointed out, a couple of very straightforward, uh, prophecies that failed to materialize. I pointed out an event where something took over nine years to translate and turned out to be nothing but a fraud. Even if we were to accept that, we can't just reject it under the fact that the remains of the papyri that we've got, were, were the only thing to rely on or were reflected of the full collection. But what we can say is that because Christ promised his church would not be overcome by the gates of hell, and we have not just the apostolic lineage, uh, which is recorded physically by, by every bishop signing into the book, but we can go back to the theology that they espoused. We know that we have a historical church. And the fact that someone could say, "Well, yes, but whichever thing we mention now is now a restoration of what was there before, like having, uh, Joseph Smith add himself to Genesis 50." Uh, which the book of Nephi says the Gentiles will ruin the scriptures. Although the Dead Sea Scrolls, which predate the incarnation of Christ, don't contain any of the verses he put in through Genesis, goes to show that it's a person winging it. And I don't think Mormons are bad people. Uh, as Orthodox, we believe everyone is tricked by demons. We are, by, by nature good, but we can be brought into a state of utter, utter depravity by them. We are responsible for it. That's not an excuse. But that does not mean that Mormons are some, some wicked demonic entities just ruining the world. Of course not. I just want them to step away from this charlatan's teachings and go into the church of Christ, which I wholeheartedly believe is the Orthodox Church. Thank you, Posh. And Jim Bob, to you. All right, the question was, is Joseph Smith a false prophet? We demonstrated that our own opposition can't even tell us the difference between a false prophet and a true prophet if it's all reduced to people bringing people to Christ. Well, obviously, Posh and myself gave examples of what that would look like. We demonstrated that people who have a wrong conception of Christ and Christianity could actually produce the so-called fruits of a good family and live a good life, etc. The problem here is that if I declared myself a true prophet, then Dennis and Joshua couldn't actually tell me in real time how they would determine I was a false one. So why does that apply to me? The ambiguity of that, but it doesn't apply to Joseph Smith. Joseph Smith was wrong about several, several, several things to which all, both of my opponents agreed to, he was wrong about. Right. So, does that, is that part of the, the scoreboard of what constitutes a true prophet and a false prophet? Is anyone who invites anyone to a church and they call it Christ Church, are they a prophet? Now, we still didn't get any strict definition of it. Now, we have a definition of it. The Orthodox Church has a history and a definition. The Orthodox Church holds to a position that John is the last. You hold a position that you can just invent new prophets at any time. If that's the case, if I perk up and say, "Hey, buddy, guys, over here, Jim Bob, I'm a new prophet." When I'm asking the LDS and the Mormons on the panel, how do you tell me I'm not? You can't. And you didn't. And because of that, you can't tell me Joseph Smith is a true prophet. You can't even tell me he's a false prophet. That's how bad the theology is. That's what's kind of crazy. The next debate is, "Can you tell me if Joseph Smith is a false prophet?" Guess what, Dennis and Joshua? You won't be able to do it. We didn't even get into the metaphysics, which I wish we, I wish we did because if it's true that a false prophet would be someone who espouses broken, incoherent theology, broken Christology, broken soteriology, we would completely decimate the Mormons. Again, I challenge both of you to a secondary debate based on the metaphysics, soteriology, Christology, as opposed to talking about Joseph Smith, who was clearly a fraud. Found some papyri paper at a farmer's market, decided to decode it based on his own arbitrary feelings, turns out to be false. Makes a bunch of claims, turns out to be false. How many false predictions does he have to make for you guys to go, maybe this guy was full of it? It only took one or two for me, but it's not even even that. It's the Mormon theology, which I really hope the next debate is about, um, the Mormon theology because that's where it really gets. You think more, you think Joseph Smith is a disaster, the theology is a disaster. Thank you, Jim Bob. Uh, at this time, I'm going to be dropping the open panel dumpster fire link into the chat and I will have it pinned at the top of the chat for any of you who would like to join in on the conversation. Please feel free to start hopping backstage now. Um, and while we wait for that, we're going to go through some of the super chats. Um, I'll say for the super chats, but I very honestly, I'm getting depleted. Oh, stop. You don't even look tired, dude. You'll be fine. I always look like I'm bloody tired. Full of it. You look like you're lying like Joseph Smith right now. Look how happy he is. I, I'm not nearly as blonde. You'll be fine. You'll be fine. Uh, Jester Gerald sending in the 10 Raging Tomato memberships. Thank you very much. And just for, uh, logistics purposes, uh, YouTube decided to change the screen names to your handles. And now, uh, so if your handle doesn't match your original, uh, screen name, we might be saying something different and we might not know who you are because we're used to the actual usernames. So if I say your handle and I don't know who you are compared to your username, I apologize in advance. Posh 420. What is that? Posh 420. That's weird. It's not the bad thing, which is the weed. Fair enough. Satan's plant. And if you are hopping backstage and you have not been here before, please cam up for me backstage. That, uh, you don't have to cam up on screen, but backstage you will have to. Captain Planet sending in five Raging Tomato, uh, memberships as well. And following up to send five, uh, made by Jim Bob memberships. And Jess Gerald starts with the first thing, uh, of $10. Thank you all for being here to debate. We always appreciate it. How accurate was South Park's Book of Mormon episode? I haven't seen it. What, uh, is there? I was a good boy when I was young and I never watched that sort of filth, so I didn't even know what they were saying about me. Maybe Dennis can shed some light. Oh, gosh, I, that was so long ago when I saw that. I, you know, I remember there was something sort of, you know, humorous about it and, you know, I'm sure there was, there was some stuff that they got, you know, correct in there and, um, but again, it's sort of this sort of, uh, I guess just general attitude about us and, um, but I, I think at least the, um, you know, the, the character who was, uh, well, actually, I'm not sure if I'm thinking of the right one here, might not be. Sounds like we don't know. Yeah, I don't, I know. I, I can't give you a real assessment. Yeah. I mean, I watched South Park because I am a degenerate, but I don't remember the, the Mormon episode. Posh, do you know anything about it? Yeah. Uh, so there's an exposition of, uh, Mormon faith, which is pretty much accurate from my understanding. But I'd like to mention the fact that, uh, it ends with, uh, the Mormon boy saying to Stan, uh, that, you know what, I've got a good family. We, we'll live a good life. So, you know, and he swears about so, uh, rather reminiscent of what's been happening in this exchange. Uh, the whole idea is, yeah, we've got a good life. Um, but yes, I, I, I continue to reject the doctrine espoused by, uh, by the LDS. Fair enough. Tiger sends the big 10 to say, "You'll never time me." Oh, guess you got timed out. Sorry, bud. You couldn't finish the sentence. I, I appreciate the, the, uh, uh, the Austrian, uh, facial hair. I will say that. I'm, I'm, I'm sleep-deprived and drunk. Listen, crack open another one. We're, it's open panel dumpster fire. So now you get to be completely stupid and we all accept that as, uh, open panel dumpster fire quality. So it's okay. Wake up dummies with the big 10 says, "By order of the Sith Lord." Yes, that, that would be Andrew, not me with my voice. Just to be clear, I don't consider myself a substitute for Andrew. No. Uh, but you filled in nonetheless, so we are appreciative. Uh, Jason Sensen says, "I love Posh. So good to see him and thank you so kindly for filling in." Oh, I heard that. That's a lie. If someone said good to hear him, that would be, I'd accept. Good to see you. You know what they're into. You got a face that conveys strength for sure. Uh, Captain DL3 says, "Dennis looks like an 11-year-old in a latex mask purchased on Amazon for the same amount of this super chat. If I ever joined Slipknot, I would definitely wear a Dennis Misagoy mask." You are welcome to respond and tell him to eat poo if you'd like. I'm, I'm, I'm just amazed that, you know, he puts in 10 bucks to put that comment. That's, that's all I can say. I'm, I'm glad I can contribute in that way. I'm not surprised. I'm not. I say he, he, he belongs more in System of a Down than Slipknot. There was another, there was another comment like that here too. So you look like you belong. You know what you look like, dude? Dennis, you look like you belong in Orthodoxy. I would love to stand in line with you as everyone else. I mean, I got a soft spot for the old churches. I got a soft spot for. Have you ever attended a divine liturgy by, by chance? Uh, I hadn't de, uh, well, you're speaking specifically of Orthodox, yeah, services. I haven't attended. I've been by a couple of churches, uh, but that was mainly just while traveling. Uh, there was a particular, I think it was a, is it Serbian Orthodox, uh, over in, uh, yeah, the best they, so right there off of, um, Well, here's my, Dennis, here's my invitation just to, just to consider the question. What would it be like to go to a church in the year like 500? Like, as an inquiry, like, that's my invitation to you. So, you know, it's funny that you mentioned like that specific like as a year because one of the things I, I was mentioning like, I said, we, we never really touched on, but one of the things I find fascinating, it's stuff that we, we didn't get into because we kind of all just focused on, here's all like the kind of counterpoints of Joseph Smith and stuff like that. You know, one of the things in particular, like, um, there is, and I hesitate in terms of like how much I get into this sort of thing, but, you know, sort of imagery of stuff like related to, uh, temple practice is extremely reminiscent of like some of the oldest churches I know. And since we're talking Orthodox, you know, they're actually all like in sort of the Eastern style, even though they're in Italy. Um, but the churches, there's a few of them. The two Santa Polinare, Santa, and Santa Pollin, both of those churches, plus a little bit in San Vitale, um, you can see certain imagery that to me, at least, wasn't really familiar to me as a Catholic. Um, and maybe, you know, I, I was a Catholic growing up and joined the, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints as a young adult in my early 20s. So, I can't say that I was like, you know, a master of, of Catholic theology by any stretch. Uh, you know, I, I've received every Catholic sacrament outside of Last Orders and Holy Rights. But, um, that's good. But, uh, but, you know, but there is something extremely fascinating to me and when we talk about stuff being restored, and you can go and see, you know, and it's not in depth. It's not, um, it's not explicit, I guess, in the way, but, but some of the imagery is extremely reminiscent of that. Um, there's things like that. There's a little bit of stuff related to the Enoch account in, uh, in the Book of Moses and Pearl of Great Price where there is something substantive where, for example, like the, the, the character who comes and asks him in the, the name of Mahijijah or whatever, which is pretty similar to a name that that only appeared in like the, the, the Enoch copies that came out of Qumran. So, what you're saying is, you'll go maybe, okay, you know, I'll take it, maybe to Bob. So, I heard, yes. Is that all? I'll take a maybe. No, I, I'll, you know what? I probably, I, I'll probably get around to it at some point. Um, maybe if you do, if you do, Dennis, please call into my show and tell my audience about your experience. Will you do that? At least if you do end up going. Sure. Sure. I don't, I don't know how soon that'll be, but probably sooner than later. I'm just, because I don't know off the top of my head. Let's maneuver on that. There are. Let me say. So you're saying there's a chance. So you're saying there's a chance. Said things in Italy. You too, Joshua. I didn't leave you out. You're on my radar. I know your channel. For a minute, Posh, shut up. Absolute Philistines. Posh, anglody. Go find a temple over house. Invite you to five Raging Tomato, uh, memberships. Thank you so kindly. Spread love, not hate. We love you so much. Um, and then, oops, my scroller is not scrolling. Hold on. And Evan Lord sends in the big 10 says, "The Croatians join." What is so funny? Allow me. Allow me. Funny chat. First of all, I know this person doesn't know too much because he calls Croats, Croatians. So, so I'll correct it as I read. The Croats joined the crusade against the against communism and the Serbs established a communist state. Common Serb, L. Serbia can't even assert control over Kosovo. Unlike the true Romans, the Albanians, Posh, don't be like that. I don't know. He says, "Even the person that posted it doesn't know." He doesn't know either. Posh is doing his own thing. You want to help? Saying, uh, Croats joined the crusade against communism. Love to see that because the people most embroiled against communism were the Chetniks. Wait, what's the difference between a Croat and a Croatian? Posh, now that you distinguish it, I, I didn't know that. One, one is like saying, imagine if you say Croatians, it's like saying people from Ireland are the Irishes. Okay. So, like, it's, it's a geographic like distinction versus a people distinction. Yes. Like sometimes it matches up, like, uh, the language is English and the people are English. But you don't say, uh, people from France, the language is French, but the people aren't, uh, Frenches. They're Frenchmen. Uh, or you can go with Spaniards, etc. It's a demon, which is what the name for people is. Okay. Uh, so that's one thing. Uh, but, uh, the idea, I understand like Croats, they love the Nazis with the movement. I, I understand they, they resist. They resist heavily. All right, I'm counting that one as ants. Why would you let me go into Balkan politics? Haven't you seen a stream? Yeah. Have you seen a single, like, if I had 10 sentences, three would be about someone around. Oh, goodness. Just Gerald with the big 20. I brought two people to Christ. I predict Jim Bob will say Christ, Christ. I predict Dennis and Joshua will not convert to Judaism. I predict that tomorrow you will all still have hands. Am I a prophet? Just the prophet. We love Jester Gerald. By nasal analysis alone. Nasal analysis. You said nasal. Nasal. Is that your other channel? Nasal analysis. I'm not, I'm not denying or confirming that. We left a good start with the $20. $20 thrown in. That's good fruit, right? I'll take it as a win. Uh, Captain Planet sending out another five made by Jim Bob memberships. Congratulations. Uncle Tiger sneezes. That's an interesting name with the big 20 for Dennis. If we can't use logic and reason based on biblical scripture to determine whether or not Joseph Smith is a true prophet, then does biblical scripture even matter? If it's simply a spiritual matter? Yes, it matters. Um, again, the, the spirit, spiritual portion of it, I guess, what I'm trying to get at is discernment. It's not an inconsistency. Um, again, I can't just hand you a book that tells you a story. And again, this is, I guess, the argument you get out of atheists because if they have, if they lack any spiritual discernment and they, they refuse to open themselves up to receiving any kind of spiritual witness, then all you have is a book that somebody says was written a whole bunch of a long time ago. And you take it on, well, is this actually true? How much do I really believe that that this donkey talked and that this guy came back from the dead? And do not call Joseph Smith a donkey. No, I'm talking about Bum's ass. Yes. I knew you were in any good. But in any event, um, but you, it's not about challenging naturality. Divorce, spiritual, spiritual discernment is an essential part of this because again, and that is what happens. Posh is going to break something. You're going to make him break something in his house. Not really. He's not. Posh might break himself at this point. Uh, no. But I'm saying you can't say, "Well, there are miracles, therefore anything we can't explain or account for." Uh, no, I wouldn't say that at all. You don't have to. Well, I mean, a miracle doesn't even have to do with an explanation. A miracle is an act of God. I mean, if I could, if I could find some kind of, do some kind of, I forget what the, the, this, the realm of science, find some kind of, some kind of scientific explanation for like how Moses parted the for, like the Red Sea parting, like some kind of crazy weather phenomena that happened one time, if we could find that, it would still be a miracle. Yeah. Yes. But, uh, it's, it's called the Sea of Reeds, not the Red Sea. That, that you would have to go through Greek to call that. If you got it from Egyptian, which is the Mormon claim, it would be called the Great, uh, the Great Green. The Great Green. So, we're going to have to go through problems of etymology that if you're going to get words through Greek, you have to follow the line of succession. However, again, Mormonism just appears to be winging it. Uh, including with the, what, what they call the Red Sea, what they call Lucifer. Lucifer specifically was a term used by St. Jerome to translate, you know, some of the morning star. And if we are getting it from Nephi, who is about more than a thousand years before St. Jerome, you know, gets into a bit of a quandry if we're going to assess how legitimate it is. Fair enough. Whatever that means. Datalus says with the big 10, "Take my lunch money." Jim Bob will happily do so. Thank you so much. I will also take, uh, beer money too, as well. Or White Claw money. All right, gentlemen. Let's go ahead and kick off the, uh, open panel dumpster fire. I have a bunch of people hanging out backstage ready to come on and have some fun. Duck included. We've got Wi-Fi Gospel Duck, Evan Lord, Counterdocs, Hello Listener, Hallong, Nate, and Ivan. You'll need to cam up back there before I bring you up. All right, here we go. [Music] Heat. Heat. [Music] I was getting into it, right? I know you were. I saw you back there like rocking your little head around. Um, okay. Rules to the panel. Everybody on the top of the panel here, we've got Posh, Jim, Bob, me, D. Well, actually, I'm not off limits. You can still boot me backstage.