j.mart

@carleolson @DwightYoakam He also has a terrific bluegrass cover of “Purple Rain.”

The great @DwightYoakam is probably my favorite country artist and one of my favorite singers across any genre. And the man is a brilliant songwriter as well, with a gift for dry and deceptively simple lyrics marinating in a wonderful mix of traditional and modern country. This album, his second release, hit #1 and had several hit singles; it came out in July 1987, just a few months before I first heard his music.

2002 2026

Such polls would be difficult today because there are no more nationally known preachers. Everyone is in their niche.

Let me explain something to Democrats commenting on Talarico being a “seminarian,” apparently believing that automatically makes him the Christian choice. And you probably won’t get it, but that’s okay. I’m going to explain it anyway. In the Book of James, people who assume the mantle of teacher but spread heresies are said to have “stricter” judgment that your average sinner. False teachers are repeatedly warned against throughout the scriptures, described as the worst types of wolves. In other words, while you can point to Paxton’s past transgressions, and that’s fair to talk about, you need to understand that what Talarico does and has done is no less sinful. And for the average devout Christian who isn’t part of a progressive heretical body, they see that and know that. You may not get it. You may think all this Christian stuff is just about saying a few words. But it’s not. Heresy is a grave sin, and something Christians are expressly told to flee from. So Christians are going to take that issue seriously in this race, even if it seems silly, unimportant, or unfair to you because you think, “Well, Talarico is nice so that makes him righteous.” Not how it works.

The Pope should release an encyclical about the search function in Outlook.

@judeokeyvlogs The Lord by Romano Guardini knowledge of the Holy by Tozer

A book you would call a must-read for all Christians,but you are not allowed to mention the Bible Let's have it🫳

The new papal encyclical, I kid you not, quotes Gandalf.

National Review jumps the shark. "This has made Magnifica Humanitas perhaps the most widely anticipated church document since at least the Second Vatican Council." nationalreview.com/2026/05/ai-and…

One of the hallmarks of anti-SSPX commentary is the clutching of pearls. crisismagazine.com/opinion/so-you… via @CrisisMag

@EdwardPentin @RobertSRoyal There is no urgency because they are universalists.

.@RobertSRoyal on a central problem concerning the Church’s leadership today: the lack of emphasis and sense of urgency to preach about eternity and the salvation of souls.

If you don’t believe miracles happen, my op-ed on the doctrine of Providence, complete with reference to RC Sproul and the Westminster larger catechism, is the lead in the Washington Post’s opinion section of today’s Sunday edition. 😄 And for those who fighting the paywall, perhaps this might help! (And thanks again to religion editor @matthewschmitz for commissioning!)

@carleolson Heard!

Asking for prayers for a very serious situation. I'll share more soon. Thank you.

Taking your dog into restaurants is every bit as rude and unacceptable as watching videos on your phone without headphones.

@hollis40304 @JohnTraddington Eye roll.

For it is a master-stroke of Satan to get Catholics to disobey the whole of Tradition in the name of obedience. -Abp. Lefebvre

A “card-carrying dispensationalist” pastor was the first to make me see that the whole Bible fit together and that every word was true. An anti-Calvinist Arminian showed me to how to do personal evangelism while in college. An ERAS/EFS-teaching theologian introduced me to systematic theology with his best-selling single-volume systematic. These are but a few examples of saints the Lord has used in my life to help me grow in my love for God and his word. Today, I depart from each of them on important subjects—even strongly in some regards. But I cannot be anything but grateful for the way that the Lord has used all kinds of faithful, Jesus-loving believers to bring me where I am today. How could my posture toward such saints, even in disagreement, be anything but one that reflects the Lord’s kindness to me through them?

As a Calvinist, what’s the point of evangelizing?

@surskitmaxxing @SenorVito9 Can’t make sense of that and translation claims.

@xlr8rgrfx @SenorVito9 "Pious fraud" as he put it involved at times being deceptive for what he thought were righteous purposes

*Deep breath* Here we go... I have a sincere question, and I’m asking it respectfully and in good faith. Critics of Joseph Smith frequently describe him as a “conman.” However, from the reading I’ve personally done — including both Church and non-Church historical sources — the historical record appears far more complex than that label often suggests. Yes, I am fully aware of the historical criticisms people repeatedly raise: polygamy, the destruction of the Nauvoo Expositor, the Kirtland banking situation, treasure seeking, legal disputes, and countless other accusations that circulate online every day. None of those things have shaken my testimony even remotely. I do not believe Joseph Smith was a conman. I do not believe he was intentionally deceptive. I believe he was called of God. I believe he was a prophet. I believe he restored the Gospel of Jesus Christ through divine authority and revelation. And to be completely transparent, no amount of hostility, ridicule, internet criticism, podcasts, Reddit threads, or anti-LDS rhetoric is going to change that conviction. More importantly, my faith in Jesus Christ as my Lord and Saviour is absolute, resolute, and immovable. I believe Jesus Christ was born, died for our sins, and rose again in accordance with the scriptures. I believe He lives. I believe He is the Son of God and the Saviour of mankind. Which is precisely why I do not understand the argument some people make that believing Joseph Smith was a prophet somehow conflicts with believing in Jesus Christ. To me, those beliefs are not contradictory at all. I believe Jesus Christ is my Saviour, and I believe Joseph Smith was a prophet called by Him. I genuinely believe Joseph Smith was telling the truth about what he experienced, and it is honestly bizarre to me how casually some people slander him without seriously engaging with the historical complexity surrounding his life. Ironically, there was once a time when I openly mocked Latter-day Saints myself. As a Catholic at the time, I absolutely would have joined in ridiculing “Mormons.” In fact, one of the ways I originally discovered the ex-Mormon community online was specifically because I went looking for material critical of the Church. And now here I am — a member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, with no desire whatsoever to go back. So if God could reach someone like me and lead me to the restored Gospel, then yes, I absolutely believe He can reach others too. Which is why I’m asking this question sincerely: Where specifically does the “conman” narrative originate, and what evidence do critics believe most strongly supports the claim that Joseph Smith was knowingly deceptive? Because after everything I have personally studied so far, I do not currently find that accusation sufficiently supported by the historical evidence. I’m happy to have respectful historical discussion and good-faith conversation. But if the goal is simply mockery, hostility, or attempts to deconvert me, understand clearly: those arguments have already been seen, examined, and either easily dismissed, openly mocked by those who understand Church history far better than you do, or left to be judged in the hands of God. My faith is not fragile. I believe these accusations are false, and no amount of repetition changes that.

@mattleeanderson If Christian Higher Ed is that dependent on federal aid, maybe we have another problem.

Lots of people are panicked about the Trump admin's "Christian nationalism," but they are poised to eviscerate Christian higher ed. I'd like more Christian nationalism from them, please, not less! christianitytoday.com/2026/05/christ…

@surskitmaxxing @SenorVito9 A "pious fraud" did not lie about golden plate or the Book of Abraham. A pious fraud did not deceive Emma.

@SenorVito9 I agree that “conman” is likely too reductive I think “pious fraud” (credit to Dan Vogel) is more likely accurate