SLC Debate Review Completed, Brief Pronouns Addressed

Hello Greens, welcome to The Dividing Line. Here we are still in Phoenix, though the next trip's coming up pretty quick. And you need to know the next debate will be on the 28th. I don't believe it will be livestreamed.

That would be pretty tricky because both Dr. Ali and I will be online from different locations. That could be problematic. Let's hope it's not. Hopefully we have gotten past the old days of Skype and things like that.

But I believe that'll be during the day. That's on Saturday the 28th. Paul or Muhammad, who continued the teaching of Jesus? So we've sort of done that a little. We've touched on it. We touched on it in London in 2008.

Hard to believe that was almost 20 years ago. And then pretty much the same topic was debated between David Wood and Shabir Ali on the ABN in 2015. So that was seven years later. And I'm certainly looking forward to it.

There's outreach to Muslims meeting taking place that day here in the Phoenix area. And if I could have been there, I would have to do the debate there. But this is Easter pageant time. There'll be folks from Apologia out at the Easter pageant.

I'm gonna miss that. I'll be up in Utah. So yeah, out of town, things like that. But I really hope the tech works because I'm really looking forward to this particular debate. I've invested a fair amount of time and preparation.

So still have work to do on that. And then I believe it's exactly a week later that we have the debate in Ogden with Jacob Hansen on the God of Calvinism is morally reprehensible. And my assertion will be that it's far better to accuse the God of Mormonism of being morally reprehensible.

And we'll explain why. And it will be interesting. I haven't seen a whole lot that Jacob Hansen has said on this topic. So it could be, you know, I hope he's fairly straightforward in the debate we've been looking at.

You know, it's been argued that he wasn't all that straightforward. But we'll see. Anyway, speaking of that debate, I think before getting to anything else, which would include talking a little bit about response from Dan McClellan and a few things like that.

I don't want to put off finishing the cross-examination from the debate in Salt Lake City much longer. For those of you who haven't been listening, a debate took place last December in Salt Lake City between Joe Heschmeier and Jacob Hansen on the great apostasy.

And that's what Joe Heschmeier came to debate. Jacob Hansen came to debate the Roman Catholic papacy. And what that did was allow us to address all sorts of cool topics. And that's what we've been doing.

And we'd sort of have taken about a week off, I guess, from the last time we did this because we were responding to other things. But I want to try to finish that up so that we can be done with it. I don't have to keep the little notes on my screen that says you're this far into this and all the stuff you got to do for that.

So my gut feeling is that probably if we're able to do it next Tuesday, a week from today, we're probably going to try to do the program from the RV that will be set up at Deer Valley. So I've got to test it before we leave.

So sorry if that puts pressure on you. We're all fine here now. Yes. Okay. Rich is the one doing all the tinkering and wiring and connecting and putting wood underneath the desk while still leaving the desk able to go up and.

Down and do stuff like that. So what? So I did test that this morning. So the system, the rack that I'm putting in there to be able to melt things to and be able to move them around if you want to, I had to extend it up.

And so I actually took the table all the way up and then measured how far I have to work with and got my cutting wheel out and cut them all down. So you have about that much space. So it's going to be very versatile for you.

Oh, good. Yeah. I've never.

Had one of those standing desks. And the thought definitely crosses my mind that after a long day sitting, driving, that it might not be a bad thing to be able to put that thing up and help the old back, stuff like that.

So that should prove to be pretty, pretty interesting and work out pretty well. So anyways, probably a week from today, we'll do the program from there, you'll get to see it for the first time. It may not be completely the way it will be, because I've arranged some things I want to have in the background, not lights or anything like that, just pictures and stuff.

Whether I'll be able to have gotten them up by then is highly questionable. It'll probably be when we do some programs on the road before that all gets there. Because the night before, we have decided as a family, summer's coming over, she's actually gonna be speaking at GCU.

And that same day that I'm bringing the RV over for it's a it's an it's an RV park that we used to stage. So you know, you get your refrigerator going, you go buy your food, I used to do that sitting outside my house, these just too big, too dangerous, the roads not wide enough, we're gonna get hit.

So just can't do it at the house anymore. And so we put it in the park. And so that's where we'll be. So I'll be setting that up. And then that afternoon, I don't think my not don't think my son's be able to go but since summer is going to be on this side of the valley, we're gonna go see Project Hail Mary.

And if you haven't, if you haven't read the book, I'd personally recommend reading the book or at least listening to the book. That's how I did it on Audible. But I'm really looking forward to this. I rarely see movies in theaters.

And if I wanted to see it, I think it's the premiere, I'd see it this weekend, I guess it's maybe already in some theaters right now. I don't know. But yeah, we're gonna see it that afternoon. Because summer and I both listened to the book and really enjoyed it.

And it's one of these, what's like guys named we're the guy who did the Martian. Great writer. I'm super technical on stuff, but he explains it real well. And it's, he comes up with some pretty wild story arcs.

And I'm really looking forward to this one. It should prove to be very interesting. When I saw the guy they've got playing the main character. I'm like, yeah, yeah, that's, that's pretty perfect. And now that I think back to the book, I'm going, I bet he had him in mind.

Forget the guy's name. Me and stars. You know, did you see the stuff about the Oscars? Or is the Academy Award? What? That same thing? Or what was what was this last Sunday? There was some big award show.

I never watch any of them. I could care less about any of it. Yeah, there was some big award show. Oscars, Emmys, I don't know. Anyway, you can tell I really, really care about Hollywood. But the big story was the release of this DEI list for to even be considered to win the award.

These are the things you have to fulfill all this DEI stuff. And then there was a list of all the former winners, major films like Gone with the Wind and all the rest of this guy's stuff. That could never even be considered for the award today because it would not pass the DEI standards.

And you're like, why does anybody care? These people are so self-important. They think they run the country. And honestly, almost nobody I know cares what they think. But there they are. Anyway, that's another thing.

I don't even want to get into all that. All right, let's get back to this here because I do want to get to some other things. I don't think we have a whole lot of stuff left in this one, but there is some interesting things.

So let's get it full screen. Get this down to the bottom. And I think this is exactly where we stopped last time. At least I hope it is. I have to have it so I can hear it to cue things up. And that messes everything up.

And so now I've got to go back here just a skosh. Hopefully not too far.

Daniel 2 and the Fourth Kingdom

Okay, let's go back to Daniel 2. Daniel 2. There are four kingdoms. What is the fourth kingdom? Not sure. Okay. Would you agree with me that during the time of the fourth kingdom, Christ will set up a kingdom that will never be destroyed?

Not sure. I'm going to punt on that.

Because I don't necessarily, I don't, yeah, I'm just going to punt on that. It seems like you're not really committing to, I mean, do you like the evangelicals? Well, I don't want to commit to any particular interpretation made by Latter-day Saints.

Because again, for the sake of the debate, the apostasy being a reality is a matter of if someone can show the continual existence of an institutional church going all the way back that held the.

Authority of Peter. If there's a biblical prophecy that says Christ is going to establish a church and it will never be destroyed, wouldn't that meet that burden? Or why would you have to look to anything after that?

What if that church was the body of believers? I'm sorry, that's a question. I would say this. Let me answer the question then. The church, if in Scripture, if the church is a body of believers and he says that it's going to continue, I agree with him.

So in John 10, when Jesus says he has other sheep and he's going to draw them into one flock, so there's one shepherd and one flock, what does he mean by that?

You know, I would say that the body of believers that exist in all the world will be brought into one flock, but I don't believe...

Sorry, you're saying this is a future event and this is not something he's going to do during his incarnation?

I don't know.

Okay. 1 Timothy 3, when the church is described as the pillar and foundation of the truth and St. Paul tells Timothy if he wants to know how to behave, to look to that church, is that an amorphous body of believers or is that an institutional church?

I just point out that in context, that's a local church. I mean, how can Timothy behave in a universal church? No, the context of the church as the pillar and ground of the truth, they want to make this the big universal church.

Okay, if you want to make that type of application, but you've got to start with what Paul was actually saying. Paul was actually talking about the local church in which Timothy was the bishop of the local church.

And not just the bishop, as if there was a monarchical episcopate already, one of a group of elders. And it was that local church. And you might go, I'm comfortable saying the church is the pillar and foundation of the truth as long as it's the universal church.

But local church? I mean, there are so many problems in local churches. Yeah, there are. But what has God chosen as the means by which the truth is to be proclaimed and upheld? His church, the local church.

That's where the sacrament is found. That's where the supper is celebrated. That's where baptism takes place, is the local church. And if you want to extract from that into something greater, feel free to try to do so in context.

But it's going to be pretty tough, because that's the immediate context of Paul's words.

Well, I think the word church can be used in different senses. It can be used to describe the body of believers. For example, the word in Greek for church that they use is an assembly. It's a body of believers, not an institution.

But it can refer to an institution, to be fair. And I do believe that the institution of the church existed at the time of... I think it would probably be the institution of the church that existed at that time, which was connected to Peter.

Which was connected to Peter. Where do you get that? I mean, that's... The only way from a Mormon perspective to get that would be through some kind of priesthood thing. But it would be Peter, James, and John were the ones that came back and allegedly restored the Melchizedek priesthood.

I've just never heard that kind of emphasis before. Certainly not from any of the Mormons I've talked to. Emphasis upon Peter. But yeah, that's almost giving the Catholics something. But even then, that's an ahistorical claim to begin with.

As we've demonstrated in every debate we've done on the papacy.

Your understanding of the body of believers, is this an assembly? A visible community of believers? Or is it just every believer wherever they may be?

That's a good question. I would say that it's every person who desires light and truth and beauty and goodness. Because Christ is the manifestation of that in the world. And so they, without knowing it, are seeking God.

How are they assembled?

That sounds almost like an inclusivistic Mormonism. And again, you can find quotations. I mean, Mormonism is a modern religion. And the printing press had been invented by the time Mormonism comes along.

And so there are volumes and volumes and volumes and volumes of writing. You've got the journal Discourses. You've got the books that were written by early leaders and for 150 years now. And so you can find a quote anywhere, I suppose, to say anything.

But again, you can also find far more in the authoritative teachings of the general authorities. That limit the expression of Christ's church to a particular organization that was founded April 6, 1830.

And central to that claim is the concept of the priesthood. I mean, okay, is it possible that's being diminished in modern Mormonism? Yeah, I suppose so. I mean, I still talk to plenty of Mormons that will defend that concept.

But still, it's just a... Let me put it this way. I don't think any Jacob Hansons existed in the 1980s, okay? There was that one guy out in Mesa that was sort of ecumenical. So maybe I'm not right about that.

But things, they'd be a changing up there in Salt Lake City.

If they're an assembly, how are they assembled? Like if you said all left-handed people are an assembly, I wouldn't know what that means. So what do you mean when you say everyone seeking after Christ is somehow an ecclesia, a church, an assembly?

Hmm, I think that is a good question. I would say, off the top of my head, something like...

Notice he's not giving us official statements. And think about it for a second. I think this is one of the real ironies of Mormonism. Just think about it for a second. These people claim that their current leaders are apostles of Jesus Christ.

Can you imagine if there was a living apostle? How everybody would be glued to everything that person was saying? I think Mormons have become so accustomed to making that claim that the outlandishness of it has been lost on them.

And especially modern, younger Mormons are so accustomed to dismissing someone like Bruce R. McConkie. They don't seem to realize you're dismissing an apostle. Or when the Mormon church threw Brigham Young under the bus a few years ago on the priesthood and the blacks issue.

Again, did anybody stop to think, you know, my priesthood authority, when I was given my patriarchal blessing, my priesthood authority line goes through Brigham Young. So if he was all wrong about that, then how do I know I have the priesthood?

It's like they just don't even think about stuff like that anymore. The unique epistemological claims of Mormonism... Now this guy holds to a more, what does he call it, sort of a majoritarian epistemology, something like that.

There's similar views even amongst Roman Catholics. But again, this is all new stuff. This is not what Brigham Young was teaching. This would have been unheard of in the 1950s in Utah, at BYU at that time, that kind of stuff.

When people gather together to do good and to lift... If a group of people in, I don't know, let's say China, get together and do something good and beautiful and true to lift other people, I would consider that an assembly, in a sense, the church of Christ.

Okay, now how does that work? What if they're Buddhists? What if they're atheists? That's an assembly of Jesus Christ? Again, this is ishy-squishy Mormonism at best, just way outside of what I would remember at all from any of the Mormons with whom I've discussed the nature of the church, anything like that.

And it can be made to say anything. Again, you've had over a hundred... I forget, was it 189? I'd say 190 apostles of Jesus since 1830. Shouldn't you be able to just go to them? Why are you making stuff up off the top of your head?

Isn't that a little strange? Doesn't that sort of say, don't really believe that they were apostles like Paul was or like Peter was? It's at least a few steps down functionally for you?

...two or three gathered in my name, there I am. In Matthew 18, when you're to confront a prophet, you're to go to him one-on-one, and then after that you're to go two or three. And if he doesn't listen to you, then you go to the church who adjudicates you.

Is that an amorphous body of believers, or is that an institutional?

No, in that case, like I already said, sometimes it does refer to an institution.

I'm just asking which under which.

At that time, an institution did exist, and that institution helps to guide the body of believers.

Where are some passages where it talks about there being two churches, one institutional, one assembly?

Well, the meaning of the word ecclesia, as you said, the Greek term, is not about an institution.

But did you just say in Matthew 18 it is about an institution?

It can be used in either way. Sometimes words can be used in two senses.

Where do we find anywhere in the New Testament that distinguishes those two senses?

In the context that you already brought up. Sometimes it's clear that they're referring to an institution, sometimes it's clear that they're referring to a body of believers.

Okay. So when St. Paul described the church as a body of Christ, is that just body of believers, or is there an institutional reality there?

I would say, kind of as you said tonight, that the body of believers make up the essence of it, but the fullness of it is manifest when you have the body of believers guided by the fullness of the institution.

Okay, so you would agree that the body of Christ is on Earth and growing as the church for 2 ,000 years?

I would say that as it says that God is working through all peoples of various religions, I don't believe that there is...

Okay, now that's a weaselly way of getting around that. It is not the LDS doctrine that the church, as intended by God, equipped by God and given authority by God, to proclaim the gospel and to baptize and give the Holy Spirit, existed for 2 ,000 years.

And if you say it's just... Hey, if a bunch of pagan practicing Pacific Islanders get together in 1300 to do something good, ah, there's the church. Give me the apostles that taught that. You're apostles.

They're just not there. This is the new Mormonism. This is the... And there's no guidelines. There's no objective way of defining what this is. And since the leadership is not cracking down on this stuff, as far as I can see, there will not be an identifiable Mormon church outside of the people that control the hundreds of billions of dollars that they possess.

They are filthy rich. I had somebody tell me within the last week that their primary financial institution controls their investments, stuff like that, just past a trillion dollars. So this institution is filthy rich, and filthy rich institutions can afford to buy a level of unity.

That poor institutions can't. But no institution can survive an amorphous definition of its very being. And that's what Mormonism is developing. Mormonism grew when it had Bruce R. McConkie's. It doesn't have Bruce R. McConkie's anymore, and its growth is natural.

And it's actually in participation parameters not growing at all. The back door is as big as the front door. So why is that? Well, when you have a strong message, you'll attract people. Once you start trying to do this kind of stuff, I don't think it's going to be attractive at all.

There's no salvation outside of the Catholic Church. I don't believe that there's no salvation outside of the Catholic Church as is taught by the Catholic Church.

Okay, in the groups that Joseph Smith mentioned there about God working through people, doesn't he mention non-Christians like Jews? So would you say they're part of the church then?

If they're seeking light, goodness, truth, and beauty to the best of their ability with the knowledge that they have, then they are.

So you think when Joseph Smith says God works through the Jewish people, this means the same thing as when the New Testament talks about the church?

In a sense, yes, but in a sense, no. It depends on if you're talking if they're part of the institution or not. I actually believe that the Catholic Church and the good, faithful Catholics in this room, that you guys are part of the church in that sense as the body of sincere seekers and believers.

And our invitation to you is to come and see and get to know us because our belief is that the institution, which is what we're talking about, its fullness needs to be restored.

Its fullness has been restored. What was restored? The priesthood authority. And I invite you to read many of the sermons from Brigham Young and his cohorts as they went to Utah. And this is not... Let me put it this way.

Okay, I've said this more than once. Pope Francis, if he held to his positions, would have been burned by the Inquisition in the year 1600. And Jacob Hansen would have been disappeared in Utah by a group called the Danites.

Okay?

Never to be heard of again. Never find his bones in a less than pleasant manner. Yes, definitely. Just think Mountain Meadows Massacre style. Okay? There ain't no way that Jacob Hansen would survive under Brigham Young.

Ain't gonna happen. Ain't gonna happen. And I don't know if that's gonna come up in our debate, but I might try to find some way to sneak that in just for the fun of it. Because this is just so different than the Mormonism of the last...

Well, a century and a half ago. I was gonna say the last century, but it's so different from the Mormonism of the last century up until about the 1990s.

Could you clarify? Does Amos 8 refer to Samaria or does it refer to the early Christians?

I actually think you made a good point on that. I actually think that the early... I don't think that's a good scripture to use to argue for an apostasy.

Are there any passages you have raised this evening that foretell a great apostasy?

I haven't brought up any because I'm not making an argument for the apostasy from scripture. I'm making the argument from clear history.

That's interesting. Because Mormons do and Mormons did make an argument for the apostasy from scripture. And I wonder how many general authorities repeated those arguments and taught those arguments. And how many of those arguments appeared in the official writings of the first presidency of the church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and were taught to generations of Mormons but can now be.

Oh, yeah, you know, I think that's a good point.

Yeah, I don't think I'd use that anymore. Okay, Jacob, you're not one of the general authorities. So evidently you do have a fundamentally different view of the authority structure of the LDS church than at least the people who ran the LDS church for 150 years did.

So if we figure from April 6, 1830, let's say to 1980, okay? I started really studying Mormonism right around that time. Really got into it in 1882, okay? Let's use that first 150 years. I'm sorry. This was not the authority structure that was a part of the official writings of the first presidency.

I would hope you would agree the first presidency sort of speaks for Mormonism. And you don't. And I cannot imagine an LDS doctrine of the priesthood that would allow you to override the authority claims of apostles and prophets.

You know, I'd love to hear maybe I can find it. Maybe someone can find for me. That would be really nice, if someone could find for me. Where Jacob Hanson has addressed and defended the LDS claim of the restoration of the priesthood.

Because something tells me he's a sharp guy. But the fact of the matter is the Mormon view of the priesthood is not a sharp doctrine. That was an invention of Joseph Smith after the founding of the church.

David Whitmer made that very clear. The changes between the 1833 Book of Commandments and the 1835 Doctrine and Covenants also make that very clear. And it happened fast. Part of it was in response to challenges within the church.

Challenges from outside the church. But biblically, it is a horrifically expressed, framed doctrine that just runs... Aaronic priesthood? Clearly, Joseph Smith knew nothing about the Book of Hebrews. Didn't understand it.

Melchizedek priesthood? Same thing. So, yeah. That would be a great debate. That would definitely be a worthwhile debate. I'm just not sure what Mormons anymore would take the debate. Old style Mormons would.

But these new Mormons? I'm... I don't know.

Perhaps, and I think that there are verses that can be argued that way. The specific ones. I have mixed opinions on.

Again, they can be argued that way. You have 15 living apostles of Christ. It has been the constant claim of the Mormon church from the time I started talking to Mormons that you have continuing revelation.

I mean, you and the Catholics sort of do share one thing. Both sides are always like, well, hey, we're not like you guys. We have the living voice of God during General Conference. Or, we can go to the Pope and get infallible guidance.

The last time he did that was what? Bodily Assumption of Mary, which is one of the most ahistorical silly claims ever made. You guys do that, but when you sort of wishy-wash stuff and ignore what these apostles have written for 150 years, aren't you sort of telling all of us, yeah, we claim that, but we don't really believe that.

I mean, come on. That's pretty weird to extend that kind of authority. And it is, but we're sort of hearing how you're handling it.

I think I would let other Latter-day Saints that are more scripturally minded. For me, I'm looking just at the plain history, and the plain history indicates that there's no institution that has a continuous existence.

The plain history that the church began in 1965?

Well, the papacy as defined in Vatican I didn't exist.

Until 1965?

No, no, no, no, no. Believe me, Joe, I'm glad that you're not part of the pre -1965 church because I think we all can agree that there were some reforms needed in the Catholic Church in the Middle Ages.

Okay, so if you say the Catholic Church in the Middle Ages, doesn't that contradict the idea that the Catholic Church didn't exist until 1870?

Okay, that was good. That was good. And I'm sure he's going to point out, well, but remember what I actually said.

It sounds like we kind of agree.

That the Catholic Church is a... So here's the problem is that the definition of the Catholic Church, if I don't understand what you mean by the essence of it, the reality is that the papal institution has been evolving.

The doctrines of the Catholic faith, even its dogmas, are evolving over time. That's clear in the history, and so it's hard to say when you say, well, when did it begin? It didn't begin in a moment.

But if we're watching the theology of Mormonism evolving right in front of us, isn't that the same thing? I mean, we have a start date that you have provided for the restored Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, April 6, 1830, right?

So if I'm right, and I think I am, that what Jacob Hanson is saying now would have gotten him disappeared in 1850s Utah. Is that development? And if the development within Roman Catholicism means the apostasy took place, hasn't a new apostasy taken place within Mormonism?

I mean, you can sort of see, you know, you said, I'm not the scriptural one. Well, we haven't heard much solid scriptural argumentation. I mean, Joe Heschmeier, in his opening statement, used a number of the verses that I would use, that God, the Father, receives glory through the church throughout all ages, Ephesians, things like that.

But certainly, the scriptures have not been the central focus during the cross examination.

A slow evolution of doctrine and dogmas and authority and claims over time.

So you point to a moment.

That just can't do it.

Can you say the same about the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, that there's an evolution and change in dogmas like, I don't know, Adam-God.

Or plural marriage.

Or whether black people can be priests or idolize could go on?

Okay, he wanted to throw that out there. He wanted to get that out there. And it's true. All those things are changes. And there's more to it than even those. And he's smiling over there and he's laughing.

You can throw out your attacks on Mormonism. All right, let's just say that it isn't relevant to this debate.

Of course it's relevant in this debate. It is central in this debate. If the original thesis statement had any meaning, there is a historical background to the term, the great apostasy. There is a doctrine, an identifiable doctrine taught by Mormonism.

By that name. There's no way around that. And so if Mormonism itself has apostatized, if there has been the same kind of evolution and change and development,.

There you go.

It's sucked into a debate where I'm trying to defend.

Mormonism.

It will take away from this debate because the debate is about if there is an institution with a continual existence.

No, no. It's not. It's where the great apostasy took place. That's a doctrine. It's a discernible doctrine. It's a definable doctrine. And the problem is, for Jacob, it has been defined and discussed by men that he claims or that they claimed were apostles of Christ.

And within the past 150 years, there's no question about the transmission of the text or anything like that. It's right there. And yet, it seems to me that the new Mormons are willing to run away from their own history and redefine things on the fly.

My question is specifically.

About that.

Are you saying that if an institution does something new or different, that it means it's a new institution? It depends what the essence,.

What is the essence of the institution. If the essence of the institution is the papacy, and it's infallible universal jurisdiction, then I have to find a time when that didn't exist.

That's our time.

Okay.

And that's a good illustration.

Okay?

Jacob is right. He's correct. The papacy as defined by Vatican I did not exist in the ancient church. No question about it. That definitely invalidates the claims of modern Roman Catholicism.

But,.

The LDS church claims that the essence of the church is connected to the priesthood.

I mean,.

I have had many a Mormon express to me that the very power of God is the power of procreation and the power of the priesthood. That's what defines God. The ability to procreate and to have the priesthood.

And you can make an argument for that.

Again,.

From apostles and prophets.

So,.

Where is that? That wasn't in the early church.

And in fact,.

That wasn't in existence on April 6, 1830.

I mean,.

I know the official story.

Well, yes it was.

That didn't really develop later.

But it did.

It's self-evident that it did. The documentation is overwhelming. So, there you go.

So,.

I hope this has been useful to you. To hear both sides and to be able to bounce them off of each other, I just thought was a unique opportunity. I'm really glad that it took place. I think both guys did a good job.

I mean,.

I've criticized both of them on all sorts of... Aside from just disagreeing with both sides on fundamental things, I think Peschmeier should have really pressed the priesthood issue. Could have, if he had wanted to.

And I think Jacob, it does make me a little nervous about a couple weeks from now. Because, at least with our thesis statement, I'm not sure there's quite as much wiggle room. But I would have thought the great apostasy would have been clear enough in and of itself to keep the guardrails up.

But it wasn't. And I had somebody contact me. They linked me to a video of something that Jacob Hansen did recently. And then the video got taken down. And I didn't get to grab it, unfortunately. But the guy was basically saying, just be prepared.