Proving the church true in the US court of law

[huckelberry]

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.

I suppose the Rembrandt fits his emotions about his belief more than the Picasso. For me I might emotionally tie the Picasso closer even without considering the clarity of the Picasso. The Rembrandt is a bit mysterious. It appears there is a smoky cloud with sparks filling the right sky, red light all along that side of the picture.

I was wondering what sort of inconsistencies he saw in critics, from Morleys link:

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.

Not being a believer I find that the actual presence of KJ Bible extensively quoted to be clear evidence that the accounts avoiding the method are incomplete, perhaps not trustworthy. I am puzzled that our author does not notice that.

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.

[drumdude]

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.

This is an excellent point about a super common MoPologist tactic. Well said.

[Gadianton]

A huge part of the Mopologist playbook is following Evangelical apologetics, and then finding creative, or uncreative, ways at copying them.

EV's are big into the imaginary courtroom, Josh McDowell's "Evidence that demands a verdict" is the one I used to hear about all the time.

In looking it up, it looks like there's a recent article on Secular Web talking about it (I don't know much about the Secular Web site, by the way).

https://infidels.org/kiosk/article/cour ... ologetics/

My guess is Densley knows nothing about the place of the courtroom in EV apologetics, and how easy it is to convince jurors of faith. He probably has no idea how easy it is to convince imagined EV jurors that Mormonism is a cult. He may not even be aware how long Mopologists have been copying EVs with sham courtrooms ruling the Book of Mormon as ancient scripture. I mean, the way he's presenting himself is as if he's the first one to think of it.

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

Why not get a retired Mormon judge, a Mormon jury and bring the Limited Geography Theory up against the Heartland model in court and settle it once and for all?

They won't, because they know it's a sham. It's a tool to tell a lie.

[Philo Sofee]

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

I have often. wondered why they haven't yet done this... I mean why are they not actually making this scenario actually real?

Let's get the Book in a real court with real lawyers on both sides, and an impartial jury and let the defense give us the physical evidence of Lamanites and Nephites. Why talk about it when you can PROVE it in court if you think it's actually that strong? Because they are playing to the choir, not the world. They really don't believe it would hold up or they most certainly would have been the very FIRST ones to actually do so and insist on validity with no loopholes so it would stand as actual testimony. I CHALLENGE Mormon scholars make this courtroom scene REAL. Let's SEE IT DONE.

[Physics Guy]

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

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]

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

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.

Amen. I hope he makes better arguments in court.

[malkie]

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.

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.

[Res Ipsa]

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.

Yes. Sometimes a client doesn't leave lawyers much to work with. In that situation, one does the best one can.

[Physics Guy]

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

[Res Ipsa]

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