DiscussMormonism.com

Morley wrote: ↑

Tue Jan 16, 2024 3:01 pm

My favorite Steve Densley piece is the one where he uses to his mad skills as an art critic to dis both Picasso and the Church's critics.

says:

Authors that are hostile to the Church regularly portray Joseph Smith as a fraud, with a variety of descriptions. However, when these depictions are strung together to form a historical narrative, it is fraught with internal inconsistencies as well as contradictions to the historical record.

As artwork, it creates a Picasso painting that is disjointed and fragmented. In contrast, the historical record without the antagonistic overlay portrays a more even unfolding of the organization of the Church and the expansion of Joseph Smith’s teachings, more like a Rembrandt masterpiece.

https://debunking-cesletter.com/83-remb ... s-picasso/

So, the critics and Picasso are inconsistent, disjointed and fragmented, compared to the bucolic pastoralism that is LDS Church history and Rembrandt? He can't really believe that.

I wish Densley had looked at Guernica a little closer. In this case, maybe even Wikipedia would have been his friend.

I hope he's a better attorney than he is either historian or art critic.

For example, according to The CES Letter, Joseph Smith was supposed to have incorporated the following in producing the Book of Mormon:

Borrowing verbatim from the King James Bible although no accounts describe him using any papers or books in the process.
Borrowing names from maps published in foreign countries that he doubtless never saw.
Borrowing from a book, View of the Hebrews although more differences than similarities are found.
Been influenced by Captain Kidd novels that he undoubtedly never read.
Been influenced by The Late War, although it is unlikely he ever saw a copy.

huckelberry wrote: ↑

Tue Jan 16, 2024 7:52 pm

But that fits the strategy of misdirection in the observation about View of the Hebrews and the other influences mentioned. No aware critic says Joseph copied View of the Hebrews, just that it appears to be possible inspiration. It is part of a culture that Joseph was part of that shared certain beliefs and speculations and story interests.

Gadianton wrote:Imagine if the process worked so well, why not use real courtrooms to settle the real head-scratchers of history?

Steve Densley wrote:For example, according to The CES Letter, Joseph Smith was supposed to have incorporated the following in producing the Book of Mormon:
Borrowing verbatim from the King James Bible although no accounts describe him using any papers or books in the process.
Borrowing names from maps published in foreign countries that he doubtless never saw.
Borrowing from a book, View of the Hebrews although more differences than similarities are found.
Been influenced by Captain Kidd novels that he undoubtedly never read.
Been influenced by The Late War, although it is unlikely he ever saw a copy.
Been influenced by The First Book of Napoleon, although it is unlikely he ever saw a copy.

Physics Guy wrote: ↑

Wed Jan 17, 2024 10:05 am

In the linked piece by Densley, he explains what he means by saying that the critical picture of Smith is "disjointed and fragmented".

Steve Densley wrote:For example, according to The CES Letter, Joseph Smith was supposed to have incorporated the following in producing the Book of Mormon:
Borrowing verbatim from the King James Bible although no accounts describe him using any papers or books in the process.
Borrowing names from maps published in foreign countries that he doubtless never saw.
Borrowing from a book, View of the Hebrews although more differences than similarities are found.
Been influenced by Captain Kidd novels that he undoubtedly never read.
Been influenced by The Late War, although it is unlikely he ever saw a copy.
Been influenced by The First Book of Napoleon, although it is unlikely he ever saw a copy.

This is really like that old Far Side cartoon in which the slick salesman points to a wooden cutout of a car and assures the customer that the right way to appreciate a fine automobile like this one is from a distance. Densley lists a bunch of things that superficially sound like significant points: "no accounts describe" something, "more differences than similarities", "influenced ...[but] never read". A chatbot might put together a list like Densley's, because it is filled with phrases that could easily appear in a serious critique of something.

As soon as you think about what Densley's bullet points are supposed to mean in his context, however, they collapse into nonsense.

The Book of Mormon does quote the KJ Bible verbatim, and pointing out that nobody describes Smith consulting a book while dictating is like saying that nobody has described a hit man shooting a victim. Duh. What would be disjointed and fragmented would be a critical view that claimed Smith was a fraud but also told everyone he was fraud. Of course he copied the KJV passage surreptitiously. That's a perfectly consistent critical view. It's not disjointed at all.

Of course View of the Hebrews has a lot of differences from the Book of Mormon. Why the heck would Smith have had to duplicate View of the Hebrews exactly in every respect? The critical suggestion is that he took some ideas that he thought he could sell. Disjointed would be suggesting that Smith pulled off his great hoax while being so completely thoughtless that he could only copy another book wholesale. Suggesting instead, as critics do, that Smith stole some ideas and reworked them himself is as coherent a view as any Rembrandt scene.

And of course Smith can have been influenced by contemporary books without having owned the books or read them cover to cover. People talk about books, and then other people repeat what they heard about the books. Conversely, books often get written about ideas that are already in popular discussion, to cash in on the trend. The point that the Book of Mormon echoes contemporary memes in Smith's own time and place stands regardless of whether he read these books personally.

This is yet another example of how absolutely worthless all these conservative Mormon apologetic arguments are. They're not just insufficient. They are absolute garbage.

Res Ipsa wrote: ↑

Wed Jan 17, 2024 6:19 pm

Physics Guy wrote: ↑

Wed Jan 17, 2024 10:05 am

In the linked piece by Densley, he explains what he means by saying that the critical picture of Smith is "disjointed and fragmented".


This is really like that old Far Side cartoon in which the slick salesman points to a wooden cutout of a car and assures the customer that the right way to appreciate a fine automobile like this one is from a distance. Densley lists a bunch of things that superficially sound like significant points: "no accounts describe" something, "more differences than similarities", "influenced ...[but] never read". A chatbot might put together a list like Densley's, because it is filled with phrases that could easily appear in a serious critique of something.

As soon as you think about what Densley's bullet points are supposed to mean in his context, however, they collapse into nonsense.

...

This is yet another example of how absolutely worthless all these conservative Mormon apologetic arguments are. They're not just insufficient. They are absolute garbage.

Amen. I hope he makes better arguments in court.

malkie wrote: ↑

Wed Jan 17, 2024 6:42 pm

Res Ipsa wrote: ↑

Wed Jan 17, 2024 6:19 pm

Amen. I hope he makes better arguments in court.

Have you read recent arguments that have been made in court? Multiple times. By highly paid (perhaps) lawyers who apparently at least used to be well respected.

Physics Guy wrote: ↑

Wed Jan 17, 2024 7:47 pm

Perhaps we’re being unfair to the apologists. Joseph Smith may be one of those clients.