Wes Huff Broke the Internet: A Review of the 1,300 Replies

All greetings and welcome to the Dividing Line. We are completely discombobulated here. The screens aren't on. You know, it's hard to find good help these days. It really is. But I was sitting here the whole time.

Now Rich is going to try to sneak in here without being seen by the camera. It's right there. Yeah, there you go. And turn the thing on there. We don't have time for this because I'm trying to cover a bunch of stuff.

It is Reformation week, I guess you might say. Um, Reformation Sunday coming up. I don't remember, honestly, any time when I have seen more triumphalistic Roman Catholic Eastern Orthodox stuff about Reformation.

I mentioned and Elon Musk said they did do something. The algorithms on X have changed completely. And my feed is just filled with stuff. And honestly, it's probably good. I'm doing what I do. It's probably best to see all this stuff, though, you know, every single day.

It's a little tiring. I mean, to see the same errors made over and over, the same really super simplistic stuff. And it goes every direction. Everybody does it, unfortunately. By the way, probably maybe by Thursday or at least next week, we will have a announcement of a major, major, major debate for 2026.

Really important. Honestly, it's going to take up most of my time over the next year. Probably a book in there as well. Finally, it's been way too long. I'm going to have to really. Some of you remember back in the olden days when I would write books, the dividing line spectrum of topics would narrow down of necessity.

So we'll see. We will see. Yeah, Rich says I might have to use my office. I've been doing most everything from home. And the simple reason for that, so much of everything that's available now is electronic.

You know, I don't need that library the way that I once did. And I'm trying to get most of most of the resources that I'm going to be using for this project electronically as much as possible, though.

I did ask Grok last night for some stuff. And now what he originally came up with, if it was actually available, would have been perfecto. Exactly what I was looking for. I've gone back and forth with Grok six times now.

Every link he gives me, 404s. Every single one. And I keep going, but the links you sent me don't work. I'm so sorry. OK, I just verified this. I click on 404s. Boy, I'll tell you. It's like, you sure you want to put AI in charge of like surgeries and things like that?

I think so. Oh, man, I was reading the wrong web page for this one. Sorry.

So wait a second. You're telling me that the AI is making excuses for itself?

Yes. Yes.

I'm sorry.

Grok literally was saying, well, on this particular subject, in this particular area, a lot of these websites, they change their links over time. But I got it this time. Click on it right back. Nope, that 404.

Oh, man, you know, it's just like, wow. OK, yeah. AI has not quite gotten there yet. Really, really hasn't. So anyway. So we'll let you, we'll obviously let you know about that. And I'll have to have our graphics folks be putting something together ASAP.

But it'll. Well, OK, let's put it this way. For a large portion of people, they're going to go, oh, really? That's exciting. And they're going to. I thought you're going to say you're going to debate, you know, Joe Rogan or something.

I don't know. Something really flashy. It's not flashy. And but I think especially as I'm getting into the mid 60s, I think it may be one of the more important subjects we've addressed in light of, you know, we're called to minister at this time, the issues that are coming up at this time.

The Myths and History of the Reformation

All right. So it's Reformation Week. And, you know, every year I remind folks that Martin Luther did not stand at the door of the castle church in Wittenberg and nail 95 theses up to the door, you know, during a church service.

He wasn't protesting anything. I've told you before that that was where everybody posted notices. They may not have even used nails. It may have been, you know, some other means of attaching it there.

And in all probability, when he did it, a farmer probably walked by with his cow, said, good morning, Father Martin. He said, hello, brother, and walked off. And that was it. Sorry. Him standing there with a hammer and pointing.

It's just all mythology. It never happened. That was the community bulletin board. He was a new professor at the University of Wittenberg, which is a small university. They're trying to compete against the big universities.

And there were no, there was no NCAA. There were no basketball games, soccer games, anything else. When universities compete against one another, they did so in debate. And so, the 95 theses were theses for debate that Luther was saying, I would be willing to debate these assertions.

And he was not saying anything that other people hadn't already said. He was saying this as a son of the church. And was he walking a dangerous line? Yeah, sure. There was rising national feeling in Germany.

There was resentment of the fact that German gold was being collected for indulgences and just shipped straight to Rome to build St. Peter's Basilica. Some of that gold's still up there in the ceiling, and a couple of them, with the promise of Matthew 16 and gold up there in the ceiling.

But this was not some radically new idea. There were people who found indulgences to be horrific. Most people recognize they certainly weren't apostolic by any stretch of the imagination. I mean, you have to completely redefine the term apostolic to say that the apostles taught indulgences.

And I don't even know, this is one of the differences between Eastern Orthodox and Roman Catholic. With the sainthood and establishment as a doctor of the church of John Henry Cardinal Newman, Rome now has really an official commitment to Newman's development hypothesis, which as George Salmon demonstrated 150 years ago, is a complete abandonment of the historical field of battle.

It's an admission, yeah, no, the apostles didn't teach these things. They had acorns, and that acorn has grown and developed, and you've got a stream comes from here, and a stream comes from there, and they come together, and it changes this, and it changes that.

And yeah, the apostles wouldn't recognize half of what we're saying, but they'd accept it because they had our view of authority. No, they didn't, but that's what they've had to do. Eastern Orthodoxy really can't do that by definition.

So, though I think some of their scholars really want to go that direction, that's the problem. So, what you're dealing with with the Reformation is, you know, Luther posts these theses. This results in the Leipzig Disputation.

Johann Eck forces Luther's back against the wall. During the debate, Luther goes to the library. He had been accused of being a follower of Jan Hus. He didn't know what Jan Hus believed, other than Jan Hus had been burned at the Council of Florence.

So, he reads some of Jan Hus's writings and realizes he's right. Jan Hus came to the same conclusions that I did long before I did. And so, the development begins, 1518, 1519, starts writing, writes a lot of strong pamphlets that are still available, obviously, and, you know, that eventually leads to the Diet of Worms, appearing before Charles, here I stand, I can do no other, and all other things go along there.

And so, there's a lot of mythology amongst non-Roman Catholics, non-Eastern Orthodox, about Luther. And, you know, Luther had a fully developed Protestant theology on October 31st, 1517. No, he didn't.

But, he had been deeply influenced by that point in time, thanks to Erasmus' Greek New Testament, first came out in 1516. It was a diaglot, Latin and Greek, but in comparing the Latin to the Greek, he had come to understand the difference between repentance and doing penance, they're not same thing.

And, in teaching through the Psalms, and then Romans, Galatians, he began to understand what our true standing before God was. Now, did he have even the position he would have later on in life, or certainly where Lutheranism would end up, say, a hundred years later?

No. I mean, you've got 1 ,000, you've got 1 ,400 years of tradition to be digging through. And, that's one of the reasons that I, again, just like with the early Church Fathers, you don't need to make the Reformers something other than they were.

They weren't, they didn't all believe the exact same thing. That's why you had the Heidelberg meeting, that's why you have Luther and Zwingli arguing, and Luther pointing to what he wrote on the table, this is my body, this is, is, is, est in, this is my body, and Zwingli trying to reason with him.

And, most of the people there agreed that Zwingli had the compelling argument, not Luther. They found Luther to be bullheaded and not overly compelling in his argumentation. But, again, we don't have to create some kind of mythology, though I've seen people online trying to defend a mythology about the Reformers.

No reason to do that. So, sadly, most Reformed Evangelicals, if you want to use that term, I think I'd be somewhat descriptive of most of our audience, supportive audience. I know we have an audience of people who listen just to know what to expect from us next.

But, Reformed Evangelicals, if they are self-committedly Reformed, know a lot about this stuff, but most Evangelicals do not. Church history is not something they're overly interested in, and there are real problems there.

Wes Huff, Reformation Retrieval, and the Online Backlash

Wes Hough posted a, I think it was a two-sentence tweet, I think it was a two-sentence tweet, basically saying the Reformation was not starting new religion, it was retrieving original Christianity.

It's two sentences. There were over a thousand responses, and so it wasn't even slightly controversial as far as, you come up with something no one's ever said before. No, it was straightforward, but I think because a lot of people recognized, hey, this guy goes on Rogan, and he's saying all this good stuff, and look, let's just be honest, you guys, Roman Catholics and Eastern Orthodox, you know, when we were doing debates on Long Island, there was a little group of Roman Catholic ladies that followed me around and attended all my debates because they loved them.

The Catholics weren't doing what I was doing. The Catholics weren't debating the one-to-spend Apostles, or the Muslims, or defending the deity of Christ, or the Trinity, and stuff like that, and so they're on my side for that stuff.

And while there are a couple of Roman Catholic apologists that, you know, try to address some of this stuff, this just isn't their thing. They're sort of handicapped by the belief system and the hierarchy that they have to defend, and so I just think that, you know, Wes blew on the scene with that Rogan thing, and so a bunch of people were following and listening, and then when he says something Reformed, they just go nuts, and so I've got far more stuff here than I can possibly get to, and I normally, you know, provide lots of quotes and stuff like that.

I'm going to try to get through as much of this as I can. I want to respond to a bunch of this material that I've got screenshots, and I've got bookmarked stuff, and because if this stuff's me and my feet, it's probably hitting you and yours, and I can't be the only one responding to this stuff.

I don't have time. The engine light's on my truck. I've got to take it in Thursday and hope it keeps running until then. I've got things to do in life, and so I need everybody else to be on deck, and so let's talk about some of this stuff, because one thing that's very, very clear, those who oppose the Reformation, Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox, repeat far more mythology than we repeat when we're promoting it, because we don't repeat a whole lot of it.

We, you know, maybe the pounding on Wittenberg's door or something, but the amount of just horrifically bad information that's just repeated over and over and over again, you can just tell these people they've just heard it a dozen times before, and they just believe it.

Do they check it out? No, no, and almost always, not every single time, but almost always when I push back, when I provide quotes, I've quoted, you know, okay, this Bishop Jacksy guy, at Bishop Jacksy, J-A-X-I.

This guy posts all sorts of really bad stuff, and when I push back and provide quotations, so I've forgotten how many times recently I've quoted from Cardinal Cayetan and his comments, about the apocryphal books, and how they're not to be considered canonical, and this is contemporaneous with Luther.

This was an accepted understanding. There were two lines that went down through church history. Augustine and Jerome represented them in the early church. Augustine was ignorant because he thought that the Hebrew canon included the apocryphal books, but they didn't.

He didn't read Hebrew, so he didn't know. Jerome did read Hebrew, so he knew, and so you have these two different perspectives, and basically, the more someone knew about the Jews and about the Old Testament and hadn't bought into origins, allegorical stuff, like, well, almost everybody did, but at least they had some knowledge of the historical reality of what the Tanakh was, the Torah and the Nevi 'im and the Ketuvim, what the Old Testament canon was for the Jews.

The more they knew about that stuff, the more likely they are to reject the apocryphal books. The less they knew, the more likely they were to accept it because those books were in the Christian manuscripts of the Greek Septuagint, which was the Bible of the early church.

So, there had been these two perspectives, and it's not until April of 1546, in response to Luther's rejection of the use of Maccabees to defend purgatory, which is a super shallow, horrific use of Maccabees anyways.

I mean, just the very fact you'd have to try to use it, it's like, wow, that's really bad. The Council of Trent responds by now closing down the two viewpoints, and now it's just one. Even though, at that point, they still call them deuterocanonical, only secondarily canonical.

Well, are you theanostos, or are you deuterotheanostos? What is that? What does it even mean? Well, it's good for reading, for edification, but not for the establishment of dogma. That's normally how it's used, but who came up with that?

You call that apostolic? Is that apostolic? You don't have that there. So anyways, here's this Bishop Jackson guy, and he says, and I have this up, it never ceases to amaze me that the man who invented the doctrine of Scripture alone, okay, lie number one, that's not the case.

We can, you know, athanasius, Scripture is sufficient for the preaching of the truth. We've got all sorts of quotes we can give from people who may have been more or less consistent with their statement in their own practice.

I mean, there are people who would say Scripture is the only revelation we have from God, who would then, because of their practice, accept traditions that are not found anywhere in Scripture, or they'd read them into Scripture.

That's happened a lot. But the modern Roman Catholic doctrine of tradition is just that. It's modern. Have you read Yves Kungar? No, most of these folks have not. They don't even know what it is. They have no idea.

That's why so many of these guys do not recognize how important it is. That Leo XIV has really followed in the footsteps of Leo XIII and established Newman as a doctor of the church. I mean, that's the biggest stamp of approval, papal imprimatur, nihil abstat, on Newman's development hypothesis, which made Vatican II possible.

The trads in Roman Catholicism have to be pulling their hair out. They have to know what this is. I mean, they are more likely to be aware of these things than I think a lot of the other Roman Catholics are.

But no, he did not invent the doctrine of Scripture alone. Also gave himself the authority to decide which books were not inspired. No, he didn't. Well, he said James was the right straw epistle. Yeah, but he also translated James.

It's in Luther's Bible, and he quoted from it as well. Years ago, I can't remember where I put the paper. Actually, you know what? I could find it. I think I know. That's weird. I think I know which drawer it's in.

It's a master's thesis from a guy at a Lutheran seminary that went through and dealt with Luther's use of James later in his life after calling it a right straw epistle. But he's probably also talking about the apocryphal books here.

Again, ignores history, ignores Jerome, ignores Melito, ignores Origen and Rufinus, and Pope Gregory the Great, for crying out loud. They don't know, and they don't care. They're just repeating Catholic answers talking points.

Removed them from the Bible, never claimed he had the ability to do so, did not do so, and then had the audacity to add words like alone to it. Well, again, I've lost track of how many times over the past couple of weeks I have quoted the pre-Luther Roman Catholic translations in Italian and other languages that said sola fide at Romans 3, where they accuse him of adding it.

What do you do with that? Well, they don't do anything. They go silent. Either that, or they just become abusive, or say, you're just a professional anti-Catholic, blah, blah, blah, stuff like that. But they won't respond to it.

Sola Scriptura has been functioning the same way ever since, causing endless division. Oh yeah, happy Reformation month, and then there's the screen. The Bible proceeds to remove book from Bible. It's fiction.

It's just fiction. Why do you think that it's right to promote fiction in support of your religious beliefs? Doesn't that tell you something about your religious beliefs? I would think that it would. All right, pulling that one down, and I should close them so I have enough space.

Like I said, I've got, and you can tell I'm talking fast, and it's already 24 minutes in. Todd Ertsin reposted this one, and we don't expect Todd Ertsin, the producer for Steve Deese, to engage in any response.

He can post whatever he wants, make whatever claims he wants, but he evidently does not feel any need whatsoever to back up what he says. So we'll just let that speak for itself. He responded to Westhoff, and there's Westhoff's tweet, by the way.

Two sentences. Reformation is not an attempt at Christianity. Reformation is retrieval of true Christianity. That's all it was. And of course, any semi-unbiased scholar on any side of the divide will tell you that is the claim that Luther and Zwingli and then Calvin is a second generation reformer.

I mean, he's converted what, 13 years, 14 years after the Reformation begins. So, boy, we still have the same postman. He just walks really slowly now. I mean, man, give that guy a raise or retirement or something, but we've, he's 20 years, I think 20 years down here, walking the same route.

Man, he must know this neighborhood like the back of his hand. Anyway, sorry about that. I just happened to look over, I have a screen here showing my truck and Rich's truck, which we have to keep an eye on in Phoenix.

And I just saw him walking by, white hair, hunched over a little bit. That's a lot of males, 20 years worth of carrying male. Give that guy a Twinkie. All right. So, Todd Ayrton, the guy who makes any claims he wants, but he won't back anything up.

He reposts Project Mystic, who says, this doesn't make any sense, Westhoff's statement. Here's why. None of these people will answer three basic questions without being intellectually dishonest. Now, is that a fair way of saying anything?

If you post your questions and say, and the only answers you can give will be intellectually dishonest, should someone really invest themselves? Because we know what you're going to say if we respond to it.

But it might also explain why you don't seem to understand what the answers to your questions actually are and have been and have been published for hundreds of years, but you don't recognize it. Who is doing Sola Scriptura correctly?

Those who recognize that Scripture is Theanostas and seek to subjugate their traditions and even their desires to Scripture. Now, you're going to go, well, that means they should all agree. No, it doesn't mean that.

We live in a fallen world. But I will tell you this. You take someone who is seeking to do Sola Scriptura, and very few quote-unquote Protestants believe in Sola Scriptura or practice it. That's one of the things you all just don't seem to understand.

Take the ones who seriously do so. Their theology will be light years more unified than when you compare apples with apples or oranges with oranges. We will have more unity than you have within Roman Catholicism, because your church will not excommunicate people almost ever.

I mean, you can have some poor bishop in the United States trying to stand for what Rome used to teach, and Francis is over there in Rome giving the Eucharist to Nancy Pelosi. You look at what's taught in the most conservative Catholic countries, and you go to Boston College, the spectrum is massive, and if you don't know that, you're just ignorant.

You just don't know what you're talking about. You're ignoring the reality. If you really want to compare apples and apples, what you do is you would compare the groups that believe that the Bible is the only inspired Word of God and seek to practice Sola Scriptura, saying that Scripture is the sole infallible rule of faith of the church, with all groups that accept the Bible plus an external infallible source, which would put Rome together with Eastern Orthodoxy, Mormonism, Jehovah's Witnesses, Christian Science, and everybody else that claims to have inspired external sources.

Those groups can't even figure out if there's one God or many, so there's your massively wide spectrum. Oh, no, no, no, no, we never do that. Yeah, you don't want to do it fairly, and even if you go, nope, I'm only going to accept my particular group.

Well, okay, but your particular group has wide expressions of belief, and why do they? Is it because your sources aren't clear enough? So, number two, which is the true church that is united in governance, worship, and dogma?

Again, notice the assumption is that united in governance, worship, and dogma. Well, those of us who believe in Sola Scriptura as a group believe that Jesus Christ is the head of the church. We will have differences, my Presbyterian brothers, about whether you have plurality of elders or whether those elders can get together in an external body of Presbytery.

That's not the same as a college of cardinals. That's not the same thing as cardinals, archbishops, and the plethora of unbiblical, non-apostolic offices that exist within Roman Catholicism, which is just as complicated and convoluted as the United States government.

Okay, it's not that. But worship? I've seen all these people comparing this mass with some nutball, SBC, or charismatic thing where they've got people dancing around and somebody's getting lifted off the stage like they're going to heaven and all this idiocy.

That represents Protestantism. Again, I can't take anyone seriously that thinks that's a fair comparison. I really, really can't. Those people don't believe in Sola Scriptura. They've probably never even heard of it, let alone are they seeking to practice it.

But you're going to use them as an example. That tells me you're not a serious person to talk to. I mean, I'm going to try to correct you, but you're not a serious person to talk to because you've not thought this through.

And dogma. Again, when you look at the groups that practice Sola Scriptura, we're all Trinitarian. The groups that practice Scripture plus infallible authority are not even necessarily monotheists. But again, you all will try to hang the Mormons on us.

It's like, you attack us for practicing Sola Scriptura and then you add in the people that have the Book of Mormon doctrine comes with Pearl Gray Price and specifically deny Sola Scriptura? Okay, all right.

And number three, why did God let his Apostolic Church fall? Well, again, notice the term Apostolic Church in caps. One of the major differences between a person who lives and thinks within the Roman Catholic milieu and someone who lives and thinks within the Eastern Orthodox milieu is that Apostolic Church takes on a meaning that you and I outside of that milieu can't imagine or can't understand where it came from.

Because you see, Apostolic Church to me is one that is founded upon the teachings of the Apostles themselves, which we only find in one place. And that's really the big issue because in these liturgical churches with external sources of authority, it actually comes to mean the opposite in the sense that there is an Apostolic authority disconnected from Scripture that is passed on externally in a mysterious, undocumentable, you can basically, when you look at church history, if you find something in church history, a practice, a statement, a mural someplace, if it supports your position, that's evidence of the passing on of the Apostolic body of belief and doctrine and dogma.

If it doesn't, it isn't. But your theology, as it's been defined today, becomes what you look at everything else with. And it filters out all the stuff contrary and only lets through the stuff that's going to fit.

And so the Apostolic Church doesn't have an objective historical meaning to it. It may have nothing to do with the Apostles at all. And that's why Roman Catholics, and this is a difference with Eastern Orthodox, Roman Catholics will on the one hand quote 2 Thessalonians 2 .15, word of mouth or by letter, word of mouth, that's the oral, and then when you press them, oh you're telling me that your dogmas were delivered by the Apostles to the Thessalonians?

They know that's not true. John Henry Cardinal Newman knew that was not true. That's why he came up with his development hypothesis. And so they really shouldn't be quoting 2 Thessalonians 2 because that's not what they're actually saying.

But they'll quote it as long as they can get away with it. Then you press them on it, they'll abandon it, back off, and do the development thing. And there's no way of disproving it because they don't need historical evidence.

What's your historical evidence this happened? Well, they either go, well, that's just an argument for the silence. Right. So if I say the Apostle John was a Dodgers fan, okay, they did, I think the reason I said that was I had just seen before he went on the air, 18 innings last night.

Wow. Okay. 19 pitchers. They had the bat boy out there throwing. They're pretty tired today, I have a feeling. But if I claim apostolic tradition that John the Apostle was a huge Dodgers fan, if I did it the way modern Roman Catholic apologists do it, I'd say, if someone said, well, what evidence do you have that?

I don't need to have evidence. You're arguing from, that's an argument from silence. That's a bad argument. It's like, no, it's not a bad argument. You're making a positive claim. You have to come up with positive evidence.

No, I don't. It's the apostolic church. So you just spin in circles and that's how it goes. So God did not let his apostolic church fall. I don't even know what he means by fall. The church has always existed.

It has been in states of disrepair and persecution, and often it's been state religion that has persecuted the church, just as it did the first 300 years. That continued on even once the state allegedly became Christian, still did the same thing.

So it didn't fall. Okay. So I've only gotten through two of these so far. Oh, it's probably indicative that I'm not going to make it all the way through. Okay. This one's in my bookmarks, so I can't pull it up right now.

Sorry about that. So many of these repeats a lot of the same things though, so we'll get to it. But Kevin Fernandez in responding to Wes again said, if the Reformation was a retrieval, it was certainly not a retrieval of St. Augustine's theology as he affirmed.

Then you have this list of assertions, and I don't know if Chris might want to take a shot at this one down the road or something like that. I don't know. But here's all these things. Tradition is a rule of faith and infallible.

Whose tradition? No citations are given. I can give you two dozen citations of Augustine treating scripture differently than any tradition at all. So what's this about? Is there a particular topic? We're not told.

Oh, then I loved the honesty with this one. There is divine revelation that comes to us only through tradition. Wow. So much for formal and material sufficiency, which Roman Catholics are constantly saying, oh, we can affirm material sufficiency, just not formal sufficiency.

This is denial of all of this. This is denial. This is an assertion. There is divine revelation that comes to us only through tradition. So there you go. That really is Rome's modern position. It has to be.

She couldn't believe in the bodily assumption of Mary if that was not something that was functionally. But I don't think this is officially, but it is functionally. Purgatory is de fide. Purgatory had not even finished developing.

Augustine has some elements of a post-life purgation, but not purgatory as a whole. That's just ridiculous. The mass is a perpetuatory sacrifice is de fide. Well, again, Augustine says that Christ's body is in heaven and will remain there until the second coming.

So again, you're going to confuse real presence, transubstantiation, all the rest of this kind of stuff, whatever. I love this one. The Bishop of Rome has divinely instituted authority over the whole church.

Again, at least twice so far, I've posted the link. No one's responded to it. No one said a word about it. To the Catholic, Catholic myths and how they get started, I think is the of the article that I wrote years and years ago on Sermon 132, as I recall.

Rome has spoken. The case is closed. You actually examine that. You discover that in that situation, the North African bishops told the Bishop of Rome to stick his head in the sand and forced him to change his position.

So the Bishop of Rome has divinely instituted authority of the whole church, except they didn't accept that. They were just in rebellion against their own beliefs. Bologna. So just when you see lists of stuff, you know, especially if you're talking about Augustine, when in his life are you talking about?

Are you talking about when he's dealing with the Donatists? Are you talking about when he's dealing with Pelagius? There are differences.

Between the two. Yes, sir? So Sermon 131 is what you're referencing, and it's actually on the.

Website. Yeah, it is. So it pops up real easy. You just put Sermon 131, or I think the title was Catholic myths and how they get started or something like that.

Catholic legends and how they get started. In an example, Sermon 131.

Yeah, Catholic legends. Okay, there you go. Yeah, I wrote that thing in the 90s somewhere. So well, that says that, but this was in the 90s. The dates on that old stuff are not accurate.

Back then, we're kind of going, you know, I think he did it right around that decade.

Yeah, no, it was before then, because I think Patrick Madrid responded to it at some point too. So yeah, no. I'll tell you what. Here's this Project Mystic guy again. What's really interesting, I'm going to keep going with more of these.

Don't worry. There's a lot more things from Catholics to deal with here. But you know what one of the weird things is? All of a sudden, don't know what happened to the algorithm, but all of a sudden, I've got all sorts of Mormons interacting.

You know, they've got pictures of Joseph Smith. Oh, you need a reformation? Well, here we go. Here's a restitution, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah. And if it's possible, they're even more ignorant of the reformation that the Roman Catholics are, which is certainly understandable if you believe the Book of Mormon.

But anyway, this Project Mystic guy, I'm assuming it's a he, posted this. Let me see if I can move stuff around the screen, because there is a video here. And I don't know if it has audio, but I just put the audio on anyway, so it should work.

Um, let me see if I can... Okay, yeah, so here it is. And so here's this, okay, ultra-creepy processional. I think we may have shown this before, but you've got your smells, and bells, and chants, and monks, and acolytes, and some people.

And so, okay, so they post that, and then they make the comment, it's a Mormon who makes the comment, and we're the ones in the cult? Because this one said, Catholicism is the coolest. And then the Mormon said, remember, we're the cult.

Okay, well, we'll have to give that one to the Mormons. Sort of hit that one fairly well. But I will forget this, and I said I was going to address it. I will forget it unless I do this. Slight detour, then we'll come back and get as many more of these as we can.

Um, like I said, seeing a lot more stuff from Mormons recently. And so here's a Mormon gal, and I was just so struck by the irony. But then I realized, you know, a lot of folks would not know the background of this, so maybe this be useful to somebody.

So here is, um, I'll, I'll get it full screen here as quick as I can. But the, this is Jasmine rap something. It doesn't say. Um, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is vastly superior to the field of biblical studies in this one way, and it still kind of blows my mind.

Okay, so here it's

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is vastly superior to the entire field of biblical studies in this one way, and it still kind of blows my mind. I don't know about other historical niches, but at least in biblical studies, to my knowledge, there is no single online database, fully digitized, fully transcribed, that is free, where I can find all the primary source documents and earliest manuscripts of biblical texts.

It just doesn't exist. But do you know where it does exist? The history of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. The Joseph Smith Papers is a single database where completely digitized, fully transcribed document sources, historical introductions, and it is completely free.

I don't need access to a university or pay exorbitant subscription prices to access it, where I can find every single document related to the life of Joseph Smith. And so for those willing to put in the effort to actually read, the documentary history of the early church is some of the most transparent you are ever going to see.

You are sleeping on this invaluable resource, josephsmithpapers .org, if you're talking about the church online and not engaging with the primary source documents. And if you love.

Learning more about the church, follow this account. Okay, first of all, she is exactly right. The guys in our chat channel will tell you that late last week, I made a comment in the chat channel. I said josephsmithpapers .org is a gold mine.

And we then had a discussion about it, how to make sure it remains a gold mine. But yeah, I said that. But here's, did you want to make a comment?

Well, it's just I'm curious right up front, do the land tax records exist there? I mean, she says everything is there, right?

That's a good question. I haven't looked. If I remember, I will look. So we'll see. I don't know that would necessarily be included. But his 1832 diary accounts there. So that is there. This is what, and she's young, she may not know this.

But what you've got to understand, first of all, comparing a short period of time, what, 18, let's say 1820 to, if it's Joseph Smith papers, middle of 1840, 25 years in a modern period where so much of this documentation still exists, comparing that to biblical studies, where you're talking about thousands of years on the other side of the world with documents that are destroyed by war, famine, disease, fire, flood, bugs, everything.