THE MORMON CURTAIN
Containing 5,709 Articles Spanning 365 Topics
Ex-Mormon News, Stories And Recovery
Archives From 2005 thru 2014
|
|
PLEASE NOTE:
If you have reached this page from an outside source such as an
Internet Search or forum referral, please note that this page
(the one you just landed on)
is an archive containing articles on
"KERRY SHIRTS".
This website,
The Mormon Curtain
- is a website that blogs the Ex-Mormon world. You can
read
The Mormon Curtain FAQ
to understand the purpose of this website.
⇒
CLICK HERE to visit the main page of The Mormon Curtain.
|
| |
KERRY SHIRTS
Total Articles:
6
Kerry Shirts, Mormon Apologist.
|
|
Kerry Shirts Steps In It Again, This Time With Limited Geography Theory "Proof"
Tuesday, Apr 28, 2009, at 07:32 AM
Original Author(s): Sl Cabbie
Topic: KERRY SHIRTS -Link To MC Article- | ↑ | Well, business and the state of the economy had me up worrying late after the shift, and since there were no trolls slithering about here, I hopped over to the MAandDHouse . . .
Somebody has been reading their Orwell and is questioning the current focus on the LGT (That's the "Limited Geography Theory" for the newbies, which consists generally of the latest apologetic pseudo-scholarly assertions that BOM events took place in tiny area somewhere far away in Central America; it's been convenient since it explains written language in the BOM, permits ignoring massive DNA findings and the lack of archaeological evidence, and allows a few of JS's extraordinary claims about huge cities and civilizations to survive intact if one doesn't examine them too closely).
Here's the thread:
http://www.mormonapologetics.org/index.php?showtopic=42945andst=60andstart=60
The Shirtster pays homage to Einstein with his moniker (E=MC2) but not with his facts and reasoning processes, which are not only circular, but unture . . .
E=MC2
The BofM claims the Lamanites fought the wars against the Nephites in their loincloths, with nothing else on. The seasonality of warfare would make that around Nov-Jan. Loincloths in New York state in Dec-Jan?!? Uh huh........ The BOfM also says there were vultures. Vultures don't live in Northern United States in the New York area, there are no updrafts to support them.
Kerry m'boy, I know it's terribly mean-spirited of me to say this, but this is not a good era for the Lard's Self-Annointed Liars . . .
http://vulturesociety.homestead.com/T...
Check the map on this one, folks . . .
On another thread, Jim Huston mentioned the systematic lying and obfuscation that Mopologists engage in and concluded it was essentially impossible that they were unaware of what they're doing (feel free to extrapolate further, Jim; I want to make sure I've translated you properly). I disagreed mildly, saying I felt those processes were largely unconscious and therefore "kneejerk" responses whose larger implications the purveyor was essentially "perceptually blind" to . . .
Not a biggie, what's obvious is whatever their motives and processes, they sure make themselves look ridiculous . . .
| There is a very famous passage in James Joyce's semi-autibiographical book, A Portrait of the Artist as a Young Man, in which Joyce's alter-ego/protagonist Stephen Daedalus, lays out his theory of artistic expression. Stephen suggests that art, at its highest expression, entails a removal of the artist from his own work:
the artist, like the God of the creation, remains within or behind or beyond or above his handiwork, invisible, refined out of existence, indifferent, paring his fingernails.
Whether consciously or not, Kerry Shirts, who is increasingly becoming the Alain Resnais of Mormon filmmaking, seems to have taken Stephen's advice to heart. Gone is the charmingly yokel-ish host of films past. Shirts seems to be sacrificing his earlier reliance on hokey mugging for the camera in favor of a much more rigorous approach to cinematic expression. Though his output has been enormous (close to 1,000 films posted to YouTube), Shirts always treats viewers to at least one glorious stab at a magnum opus each summer. It's fair to say, in a sense, that the FAIR Conference films are Shirts's formulation of a new kind of gesamtkunstwerk, as he seeks to engage every possible facet of Mormon filmmaking.
Thus, we get the first installment of Shirts's Dekalog:
http://www.youtube.com/user/TheBackya...
FAIR Conference Interview with Biblical Scholar David Bokovoy - in 3 Parts: *** (out of 4)
Shirts's opening installment is a masterstroke. In selecting the kind-eyed, soft-spoken Bokovoy for his opening shot, Shirts establishes a level of pathos that's reminiscent of Chaplin's City Lights. Bokovoy, unlike Jay Leno--his celebrity doppelganger--is immanently likable, and this segment of the film succeeds primarily due to his presence. His large, bearish head dominates every frame, and you find yourself being drawn into the picture in spite of yourself. Bokovoy shyly diverts his eyes from the camera when Shirts lays on the slavish praise, and he even admits that his biblical studies take a back seat to the more earthly and nuanced pleasures of classic American barbecue. Thus it's impossible to dislike Bokovoy.
The flaws in this segment of the film are similar to the ones that fans of Shirts's films are already familiar with. He films poor Bokovoy up against some drab concrete wall, so that it looks like they're conversing at the bottom of a shadowy drainage culvert. Is this Shirts's subversive way of commenting on the cloak-and-dagger nature of Mopologetics? It's tough to say.
Roughly halfway through the film, Bokovoy tells a riveting story about encountering one of Shirt's earlier films. He describes encountering a link to one of the films, and upon clicking it, he finds himself gazing upon Shirts's disheveled visage, complete with shotgun in two. Shirts, it turns out, was filming commentary in the midst of some kind of jack rabbit hunt. In midsentence (apparently) Shirts breaks off from his commentary on Bokovoy's scholarly work in order to empty his rifle into some poor creature. Bokovoy expresses his unease: "What kind of nut is this?" Kerry helpfully explains: "A nut in the backyard! Hee hee hee!"
Perhaps the greatest drawback of this section of the film pertains to Shirts's lack of editing skills. It may be that he was attempting an homage to Russian Ark, but it simply doesn't work. He winds up the film by declaring that he and Bokovoy will be doing "Some barbecue and Akkadian" which he declares to be "two great combinations."
On to Part II:
Daniel McClellan Interview - Two Parts ** (out of 4)
The next segment in Shirts's yearly filmic meisterwerk is his strange interview with Oxford student Daniel McClellan. Oddly, Shirts photographs the strong-jawed McClellan from above, which gives the viewer the sense of peering down on the young scholar. Whereas Steven Spielberg filmed E.T. from a low angle, so as to give viewers the point of view of a three-foot-tall child, Shirts seems here to be forcing us to visually condescend to McClellan. We are, quite literally, looking down on him.
As with the Bokovoy interview, Shirts spends a great deal of time hashing out young McClellan's many impressive accomplishments, though unlike Bokovoy, who is humble and shy, McClellan is steely eyed and vain. You can see his jaw muscles twitching with indignant assertiveness. No doubt some viewers will be reminded of Brendan Fraser's portrayal of the hapless American CIA agent, Pyle, in the filmic adaptation of Graham Greene's The Quiet American. Other viewers will realize that Shirts seems to be drawing a deliberate, albeit esoteric, parallel here with Jude Law's remarkable performance as Lord Alfred Douglas in the biopic, Wilde. Just like Law, McClellan here curls his lip in disdain and boredom as Shirts inquires into the nature of his studies. At one point, his arm flashes into the frame, pratically smacking the camera off the tripod: clearly a gesture of arrogant hostility.
Inexplicably, roughly 3 minutes into part II of the interview, Shirts gives us a jump-cut to an entirely new scene. This time, McClellan is posed in front of what appears to be a standard-issue-LDS blue curtain. What is the meaning of this? Is it a subtle critique of Lynch's use of a red curtain the the dream sequences of Twin Peaks? (And is he therefore casting McClellan in the role of the backwards-talking dwarf?) If so, one thing is for certain: no coffee will be served at this Black Lodge.
The concluding segment of the interview with McClellan offers little in the way of insight or cinematic panache. Shirts signs off by calling the youthful Oxfordian as "world famous future scholar," by which I suppose he means that McClellan will become a master at what the Mopologists often refer to as "mind-reading."
Pt1 Royal Skousen Interview *1/2 (out of four)
This segment opens jarringly on the baleful visage of "Doctor Royal Skousen," who stands before us in his Ezra Taft Benson glasses (a sartorial homage?) and his striped tie. One imagines that he wouldn't seem out of place among the bureaucrats in Fritz Lang's M. As Shirts rattles off Skousen's "world-class" accomplishments, Skousen blinks dazedly, his head lolling slightly atop his shoulders, and he rocks back and forth on his heels. It's unclear what he thinks/feels about this interview.
Of course, Skousen is an important and controversial figure in the arena of Mopologetics. He caused quite a stir after he defied the Brethren's orders and went ahead with his revisionist BoM project. Thus, we are looking at a man who dared to defy the Prophet Joseph Smith. What's peculiar about the scene is the way that Shirts poses Skousen before what is, in effect, a kind of green screen. Roughly 45 seconds into the first segment, Skousen's body begins to startlingly drift over to the left side of the frame, and we wonder: Is he standing on a dolly? Is the wall behind him moving? Is Shirts engaged in some kind of in-camera gimcrackery? Later, at 2:20 or so, Skousen sways from side to side, pendulum-like. The filmic motivation here is unclear, the but effect is one of disorientation, and you have to think that this was planned by Shirts, perhaps a visual metaphor for Skousen's career.
As for the interview itself... Skousen's speaking style is reminiscent of Dustin Hoffman in Rain Man, albeit with a pronounced Wasatch Front accent: "Therrrrre werrrree lots uhv ital-eeks in derrrre." It takes him three times as long as it should to explain what he means, and this isn't a function of verbosity. At about 8:00 into part two, we at last see the edge of a window on the far left of the frame, and Skousen, still swaying mightily from side to side, seems as if he might heave himself through it. At this point, Shirts jump-cuts to a scene at the book display, where we watch Dr. Skousen as he pages through a book to illustrate some silly and esoteric point.
Overall, this segment just isn't as effective or as powerful as Shirts's first couple of chapters. Luckily for us, he is saving the best for last.
Book of Abraham Chris Smith FAIR Conference Interview ***1/2 (out of four)
Kerry Shirts is practically ebullient as the curtain raises on this installment of his film. Before us stands Chris Smith, smiling faintly like the Mona Lisa. Shirts seems ambivalent about Smith as an interview subject, and it is this ambivalence---a function of Shirts's inner turmoil and conflict as a filmmaker---that make the segment compelling. Just ten seconds into the interview, Shirts breaks the fourth wall and makes a mess of documentary etiquette by shaking Smith's hand and torquing his hand uncomfortably so that the camera can witness the whole ordeal. Smith, wrinkling his nose and smiling, endures it like a champ.
But Shirts is clearly terrified of the young California-based scholar. At 00:17, you can hear him panting, butchering his locutions, "So , you had, uh, a chance to listen to Will, uh, Shhh-kryver's..." But Chris Smith is composed, level-eyed, and confident---100% pro in the face of this shrinking albeit brilliant, amateur Mopologist auteur. At last, Shirts has met his match.
Curiously, Shirts never bothers to list off Smith's many impressive accomplishments, which was probably just a side-effect of Shirts's unease.
Kirtland Egyptian Papers Chris Smith Wade Englund Mike Ash **** (out of 4)
This is perhaps the most curious, and the most brilliant, piece of cinema that Shirts has ever filmed. The material he managed to capture is of such genius that he apparently did not know what to do with it. The two clips seem to overlap one another, which begs the question as to why they weren't edited into a cohesive whole. But the segment achieves classic status for 2 basic reasons: the set-up of the mise-en-scene, and the fact that Shirts has at last found his perfect performer.
First the set-up: Shirts was wide here to park down his camera and simply let it absorb the astonishing conversation. It seems evidence that, as a director, he has been paying close attention to the opening, around-the-table sequence from Tarantino's Reservoir Dogs. The scene opens with Chris Smith looking down gravely at the floor, and the first clearly audible line of dialog hits us like a ton of bricks: "Um, I don't buy it for a variety of reasons." A plump and silver-haired Brian Hauglid can only frown pathetically behind his wire-rimmed spectacles, frowning sadly, nodding, and saying, "Right." It's a devastating opening scene staged here by Shirts.
At 1:50, someone off-screen catches Smith's attention, and Shirts exclaims, "Reuben Dunn!" A man with a prominent belly and a close-shorn pate lopes into the frame, his hand extended, and Smith graciously shakes it. Looking on is another man who looks remarkably like Simon Cowell from American Idol (we later learn that this is Don Bradley). As Smith shakes the large-bellied man's hand, we hear him utter something that sounds like "seventy," and Smith, chuckling, says, "Ah, okay." This, apparently, is USU78, and Shirts narrates this epic encounter of two giants: "Yeah, they're friends in life, but enemies on the messageboards." They linger in the background to talk, with Dunn's arms folded across his chest in a very guarded way, and Smith standing relaxed with his hands in his pocket. Dunn, who in profile looks rather like an aging Pee-Wee Herman, seems uncomfortable with Shirts's prying camera, and he turns his back. At this, point the film cuts.
We see figures silhouetted against a blinding window, and Shirts swings his camera around, Ophuls-like, until we can pickup the conversation between Chris Smith and Don Bradley, who is rubbing the back of his neck---massaging it, even. And at 2:57, one of the most startling figures in the history of Mormon cinema appears on screen.
Most great directors dream of finding their ideal performer. Think of Alfred Hitchcock and James Stewart. Martin Scorsese and Robert De Niro. John Waters and Divine. At 2:57, when a slightly sneering, blue-shirted man floats into the right side of the frame, we know that, at last, Shirts has photographed his own personal Falconetti. This, ladies and gentlemen, is Wade Englund.
For a good deal of this segment, Englund hovers menacingly in the background, occasionally flashing his penetrating gaze towards the camera, and we wonder: Why won't Shirts give him the center of the stage? At 3:52, he does. Englund stands before us, holding his hands out, with index fingers extended, as if he were wielding a pair of flaccid-barreled pistols. And Englund himself utterly holds the screen, completely blowing all the other performers off the set. He looks a bit like Don Draper from Mad Men, provided that Draper has been subsisting for the past 10 years on nothing more than cottage cheese, Gummi worms, Pabst Blue Ribbon, and crystal meth. He has the remains of what seems to be an unshaveable mustache. Englund's red-rimmed eyes brim with what Yeats once called a "passionate intensity." In another era, we might have said that he was possessed. Shirts wisely keeps the lens trained on this riveting performance.
Off to the side, Mike Ash, like a silver-beared mole, shifts his eyes from side to side nervously; he clearly doesn't know what to make of this. Across from Englund is David Bokovoy, who regards this Mopologetic Jack Nicholson with his chin in his hand. At approximately 4:10, when Chris Smith makes a rebuttal, Englund leans in, flashing his oddly red-looking teeth. He listens patiently to Smith's explanation, saying "Mmm-hmm" over and over again, each time with greater malice and intensity.
The rest of the segment plays on. Englund stares down all of the other participants in the scene. He's completely unflappable, and he steals the entire movie. He even delivers the last line of the film: "The translations aren't, but the characters are."
Indeed: and that's what makes this film---the characters. Kerry Shirts's enormous potential continues to grow. I hope that his newfound collaboration with Wade Englund leads to further fruitful projects. Regardless, I will be looking forward to next year's stab at a master-work
Pt 2 FAIR Discussion of Will Schryver's Paper **** (out of four)
With this character-driven sequel, Shirts's triumph is complete. I realize that I compared Kerry to Alain Resnais at the outset, but I now see that my comparison mistaken. Shirts is really more like the Pasolini of Mormon Cinema, and Pt 2 FAIR Discussion of Will Schryver's Paper is his Salo.
This segment picks up where Part I left off (don't be confused by the title). Auteur Shirts helpfully connects this one to the last by including Wade "Bobby Peru" Englund's last line of dialog to start things off. Wade continues to hold forth, using his hands to aggressively illustrate his points. He's expressive and passionate in this scene.
Then, the film gets even better. At roughly 00:47, a rather tall, silver-haired individual circles around behind Wade. He looks a bit like an older, more degenerate version of Jim Carrey. In true TBM fashion, he is consuming a sugary baked good of some kind. He is wearing a dark blazer and a Three Stooges T-shirt. The shirt has the words "Woob Woob Woob" emblazoned across the front. This man parks himself squarely in between Wade and the young, long-haired fellow known online as "the narrator." He eats his baked good. He drinks from a can. His eyes bulge from his head. Who is he? we wonder. Then, Shirts's restless camera holds still for a moment and we're able to read the name tage: Loran Blood. Yes: the one person capable of stealing the scene from Wade is none other that Droopy. As he stands there next to the narrator, masticating his dough-nut, you can practically see the thought bubble extending from his head: "Leftist! Leftist! Socialism! Socialism!" It must have taken remarkable restraint on the part ofdirector Kerry Shirts to refrain from using CGI to paint such a graphic over Loran's head.
In the closing minutes of the film, Kerry returns us to the jaunty comfort of his earlier efforts as he reinserts his effervescent narration, and even turns the camera on himself. He says, "I'm a blabber-mouth, what can I say? I don't apologize, either." The film concludes ominously, with Don Bradley and Brian Hauglid cloaked in contrast shadows, as the terrifyingly bright light of the Utah desert comes streaming in through the window.
Is this the end? Or is there more to Kerry's film? Time will tell.
| There is a very famous passage in James Joyce's semi-autibiographical book, A Portrait of the Artist as a Young Man, in which Joyce's alter-ego/protagonist Stephen Daedalus, lays out his theory of artistic expression. Stephen suggests that art, at its highest expression, entails a removal of the artist from his own work:
the artist, like the God of the creation, remains within or behind or beyond or above his handiwork, invisible, refined out of existence, indifferent, paring his fingernails.
Whether consciously or not, Kerry Shirts, who is increasingly becoming the Alain Resnais of Mormon filmmaking, seems to have taken Stephen's advice to heart. Gone is the charmingly yokel-ish host of films past. Shirts seems to be sacrificing his earlier reliance on hokey mugging for the camera in favor of a much more rigorous approach to cinematic expression. Though his output has been enormous (close to 1,000 films posted to YouTube), Shirts always treats viewers to at least one glorious stab at a magnum opus each summer. It's fair to say, in a sense, that the FAIR Conference films are Shirts's formulation of a new kind of gesamtkunstwerk, as he seeks to engage every possible facet of Mormon filmmaking.
Thus, we get the first installment of Shirts's Dekalog:
http://www.youtube.com/user/TheBackya...
FAIR Conference Interview with Biblical Scholar David Bokovoy - in 3 Parts: *** (out of 4)
Shirts's opening installment is a masterstroke. In selecting the kind-eyed, soft-spoken Bokovoy for his opening shot, Shirts establishes a level of pathos that's reminiscent of Chaplin's City Lights. Bokovoy, unlike Jay Leno--his celebrity doppelganger--is immanently likable, and this segment of the film succeeds primarily due to his presence. His large, bearish head dominates every frame, and you find yourself being drawn into the picture in spite of yourself. Bokovoy shyly diverts his eyes from the camera when Shirts lays on the slavish praise, and he even admits that his biblical studies take a back seat to the more earthly and nuanced pleasures of classic American barbecue. Thus it's impossible to dislike Bokovoy.
The flaws in this segment of the film are similar to the ones that fans of Shirts's films are already familiar with. He films poor Bokovoy up against some drab concrete wall, so that it looks like they're conversing at the bottom of a shadowy drainage culvert. Is this Shirts's subversive way of commenting on the cloak-and-dagger nature of Mopologetics? It's tough to say.
Roughly halfway through the film, Bokovoy tells a riveting story about encountering one of Shirt's earlier films. He describes encountering a link to one of the films, and upon clicking it, he finds himself gazing upon Shirts's disheveled visage, complete with shotgun in two. Shirts, it turns out, was filming commentary in the midst of some kind of jack rabbit hunt. In midsentence (apparently) Shirts breaks off from his commentary on Bokovoy's scholarly work in order to empty his rifle into some poor creature. Bokovoy expresses his unease: "What kind of nut is this?" Kerry helpfully explains: "A nut in the backyard! Hee hee hee!"
Perhaps the greatest drawback of this section of the film pertains to Shirts's lack of editing skills. It may be that he was attempting an homage to Russian Ark, but it simply doesn't work. He winds up the film by declaring that he and Bokovoy will be doing "Some barbecue and Akkadian" which he declares to be "two great combinations."
On to Part II:
Daniel McClellan Interview - Two Parts ** (out of 4)
The next segment in Shirts's yearly filmic meisterwerk is his strange interview with Oxford student Daniel McClellan. Oddly, Shirts photographs the strong-jawed McClellan from above, which gives the viewer the sense of peering down on the young scholar. Whereas Steven Spielberg filmed E.T. from a low angle, so as to give viewers the point of view of a three-foot-tall child, Shirts seems here to be forcing us to visually condescend to McClellan. We are, quite literally, looking down on him.
As with the Bokovoy interview, Shirts spends a great deal of time hashing out young McClellan's many impressive accomplishments, though unlike Bokovoy, who is humble and shy, McClellan is steely eyed and vain. You can see his jaw muscles twitching with indignant assertiveness. No doubt some viewers will be reminded of Brendan Fraser's portrayal of the hapless American CIA agent, Pyle, in the filmic adaptation of Graham Greene's The Quiet American. Other viewers will realize that Shirts seems to be drawing a deliberate, albeit esoteric, parallel here with Jude Law's remarkable performance as Lord Alfred Douglas in the biopic, Wilde. Just like Law, McClellan here curls his lip in disdain and boredom as Shirts inquires into the nature of his studies. At one point, his arm flashes into the frame, pratically smacking the camera off the tripod: clearly a gesture of arrogant hostility.
Inexplicably, roughly 3 minutes into part II of the interview, Shirts gives us a jump-cut to an entirely new scene. This time, McClellan is posed in front of what appears to be a standard-issue-LDS blue curtain. What is the meaning of this? Is it a subtle critique of Lynch's use of a red curtain the the dream sequences of Twin Peaks? (And is he therefore casting McClellan in the role of the backwards-talking dwarf?) If so, one thing is for certain: no coffee will be served at this Black Lodge.
The concluding segment of the interview with McClellan offers little in the way of insight or cinematic panache. Shirts signs off by calling the youthful Oxfordian as "world famous future scholar," by which I suppose he means that McClellan will become a master at what the Mopologists often refer to as "mind-reading."
Pt1 Royal Skousen Interview *1/2 (out of four)
This segment opens jarringly on the baleful visage of "Doctor Royal Skousen," who stands before us in his Ezra Taft Benson glasses (a sartorial homage?) and his striped tie. One imagines that he wouldn't seem out of place among the bureaucrats in Fritz Lang's M. As Shirts rattles off Skousen's "world-class" accomplishments, Skousen blinks dazedly, his head lolling slightly atop his shoulders, and he rocks back and forth on his heels. It's unclear what he thinks/feels about this interview.
Of course, Skousen is an important and controversial figure in the arena of Mopologetics. He caused quite a stir after he defied the Brethren's orders and went ahead with his revisionist BoM project. Thus, we are looking at a man who dared to defy the Prophet Joseph Smith. What's peculiar about the scene is the way that Shirts poses Skousen before what is, in effect, a kind of green screen. Roughly 45 seconds into the first segment, Skousen's body begins to startlingly drift over to the left side of the frame, and we wonder: Is he standing on a dolly? Is the wall behind him moving? Is Shirts engaged in some kind of in-camera gimcrackery? Later, at 2:20 or so, Skousen sways from side to side, pendulum-like. The filmic motivation here is unclear, the but effect is one of disorientation, and you have to think that this was planned by Shirts, perhaps a visual metaphor for Skousen's career.
As for the interview itself... Skousen's speaking style is reminiscent of Dustin Hoffman in Rain Man, albeit with a pronounced Wasatch Front accent: "Therrrrre werrrree lots uhv ital-eeks in derrrre." It takes him three times as long as it should to explain what he means, and this isn't a function of verbosity. At about 8:00 into part two, we at last see the edge of a window on the far left of the frame, and Skousen, still swaying mightily from side to side, seems as if he might heave himself through it. At this point, Shirts jump-cuts to a scene at the book display, where we watch Dr. Skousen as he pages through a book to illustrate some silly and esoteric point.
Overall, this segment just isn't as effective or as powerful as Shirts's first couple of chapters. Luckily for us, he is saving the best for last.
Book of Abraham Chris Smith FAIR Conference Interview ***1/2 (out of four)
Kerry Shirts is practically ebullient as the curtain raises on this installment of his film. Before us stands Chris Smith, smiling faintly like the Mona Lisa. Shirts seems ambivalent about Smith as an interview subject, and it is this ambivalence---a function of Shirts's inner turmoil and conflict as a filmmaker---that make the segment compelling. Just ten seconds into the interview, Shirts breaks the fourth wall and makes a mess of documentary etiquette by shaking Smith's hand and torquing his hand uncomfortably so that the camera can witness the whole ordeal. Smith, wrinkling his nose and smiling, endures it like a champ.
But Shirts is clearly terrified of the young California-based scholar. At 00:17, you can hear him panting, butchering his locutions, "So andlt;huff, huffandgt;, you had, uh, a chance to listen andlt;huff, huffandgt; to Will, uh, Shhh-kryver's..." But Chris Smith is composed, level-eyed, and confident---100% pro in the face of this shrinking albeit brilliant, amateur Mopologist auteur. At last, Shirts has met his match.
Curiously, Shirts never bothers to list off Smith's many impressive accomplishments, which was probably just a side-effect of Shirts's unease.
Kirtland Egyptian Papers Chris Smith Wade Englund Mike Ash **** (out of 4)
This is perhaps the most curious, and the most brilliant, piece of cinema that Shirts has ever filmed. The material he managed to capture is of such genius that he apparently did not know what to do with it. The two clips seem to overlap one another, which begs the question as to why they weren't edited into a cohesive whole. But the segment achieves classic status for 2 basic reasons: the set-up of the mise-en-scene, and the fact that Shirts has at last found his perfect performer.
First the set-up: Shirts was wide here to park down his camera and simply let it absorb the astonishing conversation. It seems evidence that, as a director, he has been paying close attention to the opening, around-the-table sequence from Tarantino's Reservoir Dogs. The scene opens with Chris Smith looking down gravely at the floor, and the first clearly audible line of dialog hits us like a ton of bricks: "Um, I don't buy it for a variety of reasons." A plump and silver-haired Brian Hauglid can only frown pathetically behind his wire-rimmed spectacles, frowning sadly, nodding, and saying, "Right." It's a devastating opening scene staged here by Shirts.
At 1:50, someone off-screen catches Smith's attention, and Shirts exclaims, "Reuben Dunn!" A man with a prominent belly and a close-shorn pate lopes into the frame, his hand extended, and Smith graciously shakes it. Looking on is another man who looks remarkably like Simon Cowell from American Idol (we later learn that this is Don Bradley). As Smith shakes the large-bellied man's hand, we hear him utter something that sounds like "seventy," and Smith, chuckling, says, "Ah, okay." This, apparently, is USU78, and Shirts narrates this epic encounter of two giants: "Yeah, they're friends in life, but enemies on the messageboards." They linger in the background to talk, with Dunn's arms folded across his chest in a very guarded way, and Smith standing relaxed with his hands in his pocket. Dunn, who in profile looks rather like an aging Pee-Wee Herman, seems uncomfortable with Shirts's prying camera, and he turns his back. At this, point the film cuts.
We see figures silhouetted against a blinding window, and Shirts swings his camera around, Ophuls-like, until we can pickup the conversation between Chris Smith and Don Bradley, who is rubbing the back of his neck---massaging it, even. And at 2:57, one of the most startling figures in the history of Mormon cinema appears on screen.
Most great directors dream of finding their ideal performer. Think of Alfred Hitchcock and James Stewart. Martin Scorsese and Robert De Niro. John Waters and Divine. At 2:57, when a slightly sneering, blue-shirted man floats into the right side of the frame, we know that, at last, Shirts has photographed his own personal Falconetti. This, ladies and gentlemen, is Wade Englund.
For a good deal of this segment, Englund hovers menacingly in the background, occasionally flashing his penetrating gaze towards the camera, and we wonder: Why won't Shirts give him the center of the stage? At 3:52, he does. Englund stands before us, holding his hands out, with index fingers extended, as if he were wielding a pair of flaccid-barreled pistols. And Englund himself utterly holds the screen, completely blowing all the other performers off the set. He looks a bit like Don Draper from Mad Men, provided that Draper has been subsisting for the past 10 years on nothing more than cottage cheese, Gummi worms, Pabst Blue Ribbon, and crystal meth. He has the remains of what seems to be an unshaveable mustache. Englund's red-rimmed eyes brim with what Yeats once called a "passionate intensity." In another era, we might have said that he was possessed. Shirts wisely keeps the lens trained on this riveting performance.
Off to the side, Mike Ash, like a silver-beared mole, shifts his eyes from side to side nervously; he clearly doesn't know what to make of this. Across from Englund is David Bokovoy, who regards this Mopologetic Jack Nicholson with his chin in his hand. At approximately 4:10, when Chris Smith makes a rebuttal, Englund leans in, flashing his oddly red-looking teeth. He listens patiently to Smith's explanation, saying "Mmm-hmm" over and over again, each time with greater malice and intensity.
The rest of the segment plays on. Englund stares down all of the other participants in the scene. He's completely unflappable, and he steals the entire movie. He even delivers the last line of the film: "The translations aren't, but the characters are."
Indeed: and that's what makes this film---the characters. Kerry Shirts's enormous potential continues to grow. I hope that his newfound collaboration with Wade Englund leads to further fruitful projects. Regardless, I will be looking forward to next year's stab at a master-work.
With this character-driven sequel, Shirts's triumph is complete. I realize that I compared Kerry to Alain Resnais at the outset, but I now see that my comparison mistaken. Shirts is really more like the Pasolini of Mormon Cinema, and Pt 2 FAIR Discussion of Will Schryver's Paper is his Salo.
This segment picks up where Part I left off (don't be confused by the title). Auteur Shirts helpfully connects this one to the last by including Wade "Bobby Peru" Englund's last line of dialog to start things off. Wade continues to hold forth, using his hands to aggressively illustrate his points. He's expressive and passionate in this scene.
Then, the film gets even better. At roughly 00:47, a rather tall, silver-haired individual circles around behind Wade. He looks a bit like an older, more degenerate version of Jim Carrey. In true TBM fashion, he is consuming a sugary baked good of some kind. He is wearing a dark blazer and a Three Stooges T-shirt. The shirt has the words "Woob Woob Woob" emblazoned across the front. This man parks himself squarely in between Wade and the young, long-haired fellow known online as "the narrator." He eats his baked good. He drinks from a can. His eyes bulge from his head. Who is he? we wonder. Then, Shirts's restless camera holds still for a moment and we're able to read the name tage: Loran Blood. Yes: the one person capable of stealing the scene from Wade is none other that Droopy. As he stands there next to the narrator, masticating his dough-nut, you can practically see the thought bubble extending from his head: "Leftist! Leftist! Socialism! Socialism!" It must have taken remarkable restraint on the part of director Kerry Shirts to refrain from using CGI to paint such a graphic over Loran's head.
In the closing minutes of the film, Kerry returns us to the jaunty comfort of his earlier efforts as he reinserts his effervescent narration, and even turns the camera on himself. He says, "I'm a blabber-mouth, what can I say? I don't apologize, either." The film concludes ominously, with Don Bradley and Brian Hauglid cloaked in contrast shadows, as the terrifyingly bright light of the Utah desert comes streaming in through the window.
Is this the end? Or is there more to Kerry's film? Time will tell.
| Is Schryver's Theory Just A Use Of The Hot Tub Time Machine?
Tuesday, Aug 17, 2010, at 12:40 PM
Original Author(s): Sock Puppet
Topic: KERRY SHIRTS -Link To MC Article- | ↑ | Nibley claimed back in 1971 that Grammar is "of no practical value whatever." Hugh Nibley, "The Meaning of the Kirtland Egyptian Papers," BYU Studies 11, no. 4 (Summer 1971): 357.
http://byustudies.byu.edu/PDFLibrary/...
Thirty-nine years later, with the same title ("The Meaning of the Kirtland Egyptian Papers") , Will claims that the KEP are an enciphering tool that did not work--no practical value whatever.
http://www.fairlds.org/conf10b.html#S...
Ground breaking stuff, I tell ya, ground breaking.
| For those who don't know, Shirts is otherwise known as the Backyard Professor. He is the former director of research for FAIR and is still listed as a researcher.
It took me a while to catch on to what he was doing. The title of my video was "Archaeological Proofs of the Book of Mormon." The point of which is to show that in spite of Mormon claims, they not only have no proofs, they have no evidence. Shirts climbed on this and twisted his way through to prove the point that there is no "proof" only "opinion." So, he completely "proved" my point that the Mormon proofs are worthless, because they are simply opinion and opinion that does not hold up to scrutiny. I knew who he was and was not very nice. I forgot this happened until I started going back through some of my documents.
Archaeology NEVER has the last word on proof or reality. Want proof? Look at William G. Dever's book "Did God Have a Wife?" wherein he answers it in the affirmative. Now who west of Suez would have ever thought *that*?!?
TheBackyardProfessor
Dever provides "PROOF"? There is as much evidence that Jesus had a relationship with groups such as the Essenes who did not believe in marriage. His 40 days in the wilderness and coat without seam are indications of the relationship. Archaeology never claims final proof, because it is willing to admit they were wrong when new evidence is found. Ignorant people feel the need to search for whatever shred of evidence that exists to support their ridiculous conclusions. Shirts, you are a joke.
jhuston7
Hey dope. Before opening your mouth, engage your brain and understand what I SAID. I said archaeology provides NO PROOF, my PROOF of which is Dever's book. He goes AGAINST the conventions of archaeology. You are the joke. You are also wrong about the Essenes never marrying. True some were celibate, but others were married.
TheBackyardProfessor
Documentation Sparky. Give me chapter and verse of what you are claiming. Your being Mormon, and especially an apologist, lowers your credibility and I require sources from everyone that makes such claims. I also expect specific documentation where Dever supports your claims and exactly what he said. Not paraphrased, not taken out of context. I will check in detail any sources you provide. References to Maxwell Institute papers or other Mormon sources does not mean anything to me.
jhuston7
O.K., for the less than genius (take a bow pal, yer on stage), I will tell you *AGAIN* William G. Dever's book "Does God Have a Wife?" and he says archaeology absolutely SHOWS this was the ancient Israelite belief in many more quarters of the land than was previously suspected. Google it and have a great read.
TheBackyardProfessor
Not my job Sparky. I am requiring no more of you than the typical Mormon apologist requires of us "anti-Mormons." I have in fact copied my tactics from the illustrious Denial C. Peterson. You have the burden of proof here. You are the one throwing around the word proof, so prove it to me Sparky.
That being said, whether Jesus was married or not has absolutely nothing to do with North American archaeology. It is just something that one archaeologist has commented on. BFD
jhuston7
You are like an ant to an elephant in relation to Daniel C. Peterson's credentials and abilities. I don't have to prove anything to you. I gave you the reference. Read it yourself.
TheBackyardProfessor
It is the person making outlandish and ridiculous claims that bears the burden of proof. Mormonism is ridiculous and outlandish ergo you bear the burden of proof Sparky. I don't need to do any research. I have already done sufficient for my needs.
jhuston7
So have I, and I am more than confident Mormonism will come off victorious.
TheBackyardProfessor
Fat chance. It is losing more every day.
jhuston7
I want to know specifically what sources you have concerning the Essenes and I will evaluate their credibility. People Like Denial C. Peterson and Whiting are worse than no source at all. I have caught them in too many misquotes and clear lies.
jhuston7
Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight, yeah all we Mormans can't even read yet, let alone type, or use our sources correctly. Yeah you others are so far beyond me and all the rest, you already HAVE read all about it and are toying with me right? You already KNOW that not all the essenes were celibates, but are going easy on me right?
TheBackyardProfessor
Buy and read the book "Breaking the Mormon Code" which point by point shows how Peterson misquoted and bastardized sources to attempt to support the Mormon position. He specifically critiqued Peterson's "Offenders for a Word" which has been since removed from publication. To me the removal of the book from publication is very telling.
jhuston7
Yeah they say the same thing about me and the same thing about Hugh Nibley and the same thing about John Gee, etc. ESPECIALLY when they cannot refute the materials. In other words, YAWN!
TheBackyardProfessor
I gave you the reference, read it for yourself. I have nothing to prove here, you do.
jhuston7
No I don't. I am fine with my beliefs. I could care less if you fall for this type of brainless, lopsided thinking.
TheBackyardProfessor
Boy if that is not a joke. A Mormon unable to look beyond the narrow limits allowed him by his fundamentalist religion saying I have lopsided thinking. Someone who twists and strains to justify the ridiculous claims of a cult saying someone else has lopsided thinking. That is the best laugh I have had in a long time. I am sure you are "fine" with your beliefs. People like you generally are.
jhuston7
I am glad you agree that you have lopsided thinking, it definitely shows.
TheBackyardProfessor
I think I have clearly demonstrated and explained that it is you that have lopsided thinking. Having to get the last word in does not make Mormonism any more true and shows you for who you are.
jhuston7
My contention in all of this is that Dever does not provide "PROOF." He provides opinion, which happens to be contrary to the opinion of the majority of other "experts" in his field, as you have pointed out. You call it "PROOF" because it agrees with your narrow minded, pedantic Mormon thinking. It is not "PROOF" of anything, Sparky.
jhuston7
LOL! You FINALLY are getting the deep ***IRONY*** of me using the word "proof." It's about time, I honestly thought you were just playing stupid for the crowd to chuckle.....
TheBackyardProfessor
And you have just proven that the "proofs" Mormons claim are worthless.
jhuston7
| Beastie links to a very interesting, albeit short, apologetic piece by Kerry A Shirts. See http://www.ida.net/graphics/shirtail/...
JSJr gave a sermon about one month before his murder. It was a Sunday sermon aboard the Mississippi steam boat, the Maid of Iowa. The sermon is summarized by Thomas Bullock, ‘scribe of steamer’. In that sermon, JSJr addressed the accusations of polygamy and said “What a thing it is for a man to be accused of committing adultery, and having seven wives, when I can only find one.” The summary can be found here (http://www.boap.org/LDS/History/Histo...) and by searching for “Sunday, 26.--At 10”.
A bit of background, however, is in order. In late December 1843, word in Nauvoo, allegedly from Hyrum Smith, was that JSJr had the Nauvoo police surveilling William Marks and William Law for possible disloyalty to JSJr. William Law asked the Nauvoo police for special protection in light of this news. Upon hearing this JSJr convened official inquiries as the Nauvoo mayor. The hearings were conducted on December 29, 1843 and January 3 and 5, 1844. JSJr mused during these hearings that there was a ‘Brutus’ in his midst. At the end of the hearing on January 5, 1844, JSJr questioned the allegiance and loyalty of Wilson Law, brother to William. Wilson held the rank of Major-general in the Nauvoo Legion. It is recorded in History of the Church, Vol. 6 that
Alderman Orson Spencer spoke, approving the conduct of the police. General Wilson Law said. "I am Joseph's friend' he has no better friend in the world. I am ready to lay down my life for him;" and upon that the mayor and General Wilson Law shook hands.
Note, I have not been able to find any historical reference to William Law having made the statement that he would lay down his life for JSJr (but would welcome anyone pointing such out). Only Wilson’s January 5, 1844 statement.
Much transpired between January 5 and May 26, 1844, when JSJr gave the Sunday sermon on the Maid of Iowa. JSJr had both William Law and Wilson Law excommunicated because they dissented over JSJr’s ‘polygamy’, were organizing a Mormon splinter group, and blowing the lid on that ‘polygamy’ and the existence of the theocratic Council of Fifty. JSJr used the occasion of the May 26 Sunday sermon aboard the Maid of Iowa to address the allegations swirling around Nauvoo (underlining added):
Another indictment has been got up against me. It appears a holy prophet has arisen up, and he has testified against me; the reason is he is so holy. The Lord knows I do not care how many churches are in the world. As many as believe me, may. If the doctrine that I preach is true, the tree must be good. I have prophesied things that have come to pass, and can still.
Inasmuch as there is a new church, this must be old, and of course we ought to be set down as orthodox. From henceforth let all the churches now no longer persecute orthodoxy. I never built upon any other man's ground. I never told the old Catholic that he was a fallen true prophet God knows, then, that the charges against me are false.
I had not been married scarcely five minutes, and made one proclamation of the Gospel, before it was reported that I had seven wives. I mean to live and proclaim the truth as long as I can.
This new holy prophet [William Law] has gone to Carthage and swore that I had told him that I was guilty of adultery. This spiritual wifeism! Why, a man dares not speak or wink, for fear of being accused of this.
William Law testified before forty policemen, and the assembly room full of witnesses, that he testified under oath that he never had heard or seen or knew anything immoral or criminal against me. He testified under oath that he was my friend, and not the "Brutus." There was a cogitation who was the "Brutus." I had not prophesied against William Law. He swore under oath that he was satisfied that he was ready to lay down his life for me, and he swears that I have committed adultery. I wish the grand jury would tell me who they are--whether it will be a course or blessing to me. I am quite tired of the fools asking me.
A man asked me whether the commandment was given that a man may have seven wives; and now the new prophet has charged me with adultery. I never had any fuss with these men until that Female Relief Society brought out the paper against adulterers and adulteresses.
Dr. Goforth was invited into the Laws' clique, and Dr. Foster and the clique were dissatisfied with that document, and they rush away and leave the Church, and conspire to take away my life; and because I will not countenance such wickedness, they proclaim that I have been a true prophet, but that I am now a fallen prophet.
Jackson has committed murder, robbery, and perjury; and I can prove it by half-a-dozen witnesses. Jackson got up and said--"By God, he is innocent," and now swears that I am guilty. He threatened my life.
There is another Law, not the prophet, who was cashiered for dishonesty and robbing the government Wilson Law also swears that I told him I was guilty of adultery. Brother Jonathan Dunham can swear to the contrary. I have been chained. I have rattled chains before in a dungeon for the truth's sake. I am innocent of all these charges, and you can bear witness of my innocence, for you know me yourselves.
When I love the poor, I ask no favors of the rich. I can go to the cross--I can lay down my life; but don't forsake me. I want the friendship of my brethren.--Let us teach the things of Jesus Christ. Pride goes before destruction, and a haughty spirit before a downfall.
Be meek and lowly, upright and pure; render good for evil. If you bring on yourselves your own destruction, I will complain. It is not right for a man to bare down his neck to the oppressor always. Be humble and patient in all circumstances of life; we shall then triumph more gloriously. What a thing it is for a man to be accused of committing adultery, and having seven wives, when I can only find one.
I am the same man, and as innocent as I was fourteen years ago; and I can prove them all perjurers. I labored with these apostates myself until I was out of all manner of patience; and then I sent my brother Hyrum, whom they virtually kicked out of doors.
Now, before you read further, pause and consider this summary of JSJr’s sermon, as written by his scribe Thomas Bullock and included in the History of the Church. Ask yourself and answer this question for yourself: Did JSJr in the sermon deny engaging in ‘polygamy’?
Kerry Shirts says ‘no’ and has kicked his mopologetics into high gear.
Critics will sometimes contend that Joseph Smith in the History of the Church denied Polygamy. Is this an accurate assessment of his words though? I honestly, after reading through the entire entry, instead of the mere paragraph critics will quote, don’t see how Joseph Smith is denying Polygamy.[1]
The quote from Joseph Smith goes like this:
"I had not been married scarcely five minutes, and made one proclemation of the Gospel, before it was reported that I had seven wives[1a]....This spiritual wifeism! Why, a man does not speak or wink, for fear of being accused of this....What a thing it is for a man to be accused of committing adultery, and having seven wives, when I can only find one.[1b] I am the same man, and as innocent as I was fourteen years ago; and I can prove them all perjerurs"-Joseph Smith[1c] (History of The Church 6:410-411)
Critics contend that:
(1) This is a denial of involvement in any type of plural marriage.
In reading Joseph Smith History Vol. 6: pp. 408-411, it is a fascinating account of how so many were bearing false witness against the Prophet, and with affidavits.[2]
If I am understanding this correctly, the Prophet says "I had not been married scarcely five minutes, and made one proclamation of the Gospel, Before it was reported I had 7 wives." (p. 410). I am wondering[3] if he is referring to his marriage to Emma, way back earlier in his life... The the Prophet says William Law swore that Joseph himself said he himself was committing adultery! But notice what the Prophet said next: "Why, a man dares not speak or wink, for fear of being accused of this."
Law vacillated between claiming he would lay his life down for Joseph Smith[4], which he DIDN'T do, and then claiming Smith admitted to committing adultery. Law was unstable so far as an honest man goes[5]. He was not honest, as he turned against Joseph Smith, instead of sticking with him and giving his life for the Prophet as he had apparently bragged he would do if necessary. In other words, if Law lied about that, he very well could be lying about Jospeh Smith committing adultery.[6]
I understand all this to mean rumors were spreading all over, and Joseph was being talked about wrongly. That is the entire context of this part of his history.[7] On p. 411 the Prophet is showing how witnesses are contradicting each other all over the place. Law claims Smith told him that he (Smith) was committing adultery. Another witness, Jonathan Durham, swore the opposite case. The Prophet declares he is innocent of these charges (the adultery).
When he says he is the same man he was fourteen years ago, and innocent, his innocence is that of not committing adultery.[8] He didn't commit it fourteen years ago, and he wasn't committing it then at his accusation trial (if that is what it was, I haven't read much more than the few pages you mentioned).
All in all, his accusations of him committing adultery is what he is denying. I honestly don't see this as his denying polygamy at all.[9]
[10]The provenance of this entry and others is also interesting and important to note as well. Dean Jessee, the author of the finest book on what Joseph Smith said The Personal Writings of Joseph Smith, as well as author of numerous articles on the Prophet noted that many of Joseph’s sermons and sayings in the History of the Church were recorded after Joseph was dead, by scribes, such as Thomas Bullock, which this account apparently comes from. Some of his materials have been supervised by a committee, and Joseph Smith comes across differently from their vantage point than he would have originally. Scribes editing the History only could do the best that they remembered in some cases. See Dean C. Jessee, "Priceless Words And Fallible Memories: Joseph Smith As Seen In The Effort To Preserve His Discourses," BYU Studies, 31 (Spring 1991), pp. 19-40.
Interestingly, Cook and Ehat in their book The Words of Joseph Smith noted that some of the material by the scribes are either lost or misplaced. Cook and Ehat, _The Words Of Joseph Smith_, p. 406, note 1 under date 26 May 1844. Their entry under the same page at 26 May, 1844 note 5 reports that many scribes and clerks were employed in keeping Smith’s diaries, letterbooks, and accounts, such as Willard Richards, James Mullholland and William Clayton and Robert B. Thompson. This accords well with what Joseph Smith said in the above account, that he had kept many men busy for the last three years recording what he had been saying and doing, so no court of law could hang him. He had many witnesses, hence the false affidavits were shown to be such.
Robert L. Millet, in his article "Joseph Smith’s Translation of the Bible and the Doctrine and Covenants," in Robert L. Millet, Kent P. Jackson, eds., Studies in Scripture: Doctrine and Covenants, Vol. 1, Randall Book Co., 1984: 135, records that Dandamp;C 47:1 commands Joseph to keep a diary and regular history and he was to have assistants in helping him transcribe the happenings to the church and himself. This pattern of having scribes help Joseph was involved with the Book of Mormon, the Doctrine and Covenants, the Joseph Smith Translation, the Book of Abraham papyri, and the History of the Church.
In my personal opinion, the critics just want to have something
anything against Joseph Smith to keep them from searing their conscience for not looking into Mormonism honestly.[11] It’s that simple.
See: http://www.ida.net/graphics/shirtail/...
Let’s now examine the mopologetic techniques used by Shirts.
[1]-The mopologist first states that he “honestly” doesn’t see the critic’s point at all. Not a mere denial, mind you, but one that claims that the mopologist has ‘honestly’ considered the criticism, and simply does not see it. Shirts sandwiches the damning comment by JSJr [1b] between a pair of canard statements, [1a] and [1b].
[2]-Next, Shirts throws a little red meat to the ravenous troops of FAIR/NAMIRS and their admirers by raising the specter of the persecution-complex boogeyman as the context of the times: “so many were bearing false witness against the Prophet, and with affidavits”
[3]-Shirts turns his focus on the [1a] statement that within 5 minutes of JSJr’s wedding, and having then only once proclaimed the gospel, JSJr claimed he was accused of having 7 wives. This is a pushover strawman argument. JSJr’s hyperbole aside, this is not the statement that damns JSJr in this regard. Shirts the mopologist uses this technique to earn some cred with the reader, who will be nodding in agreement with Shirts as he knocks down this strawman.
[4]-JSJr conflated William Law with his brother, Wilson Law. JSJr misattributed Wilson’s January 5, 1844 statement of loyalty (‘lay down my life’ for JSJr) to William. William did make the accusations in May 1844 by William Law to a grand jury that JSJr admitted to William Law that he, JSJr, was guilty of adultery. Shirts repeats the conflation of Wilson Law with William Law that JSJr started, in order to seize on a contradiction that JSJr apparently fabricated.
[5]-Shirts then claims that William Law is unstable when it comes to honesty, before then [6] declaring that William Law to be a liar, and ask rhetorically ‘so what else did he lie about?’
[7]-Having made a flimsy, unsupported accusation about William Law’s honesty, the mopologist retreats to the safe confines of reiterating the boogeyman–“rumors were spreading all over, and Joseph was being talked about wrongly. That is the entire context of this part of his history.” Not quite the entire context, but if you’ve kept nodding your head in agreement with Shirts as you read through his piece, you perhaps did not notice that Shirts was taking you far out on the limb, farther than the limb can support.
[8]-This is perhaps the most tactical maneuver that Shirts deploys. With the [1b] statement–on the other side of the real problem statement by JSJr–Shirts, exhibiting the hubris of a mopologist on a roll, begins the absurd. He’s ‘swinging for the fences’ so to speak. He claims that JSJr was merely denying being an adulterer, because he was not one 14 years earlier, he is not one now. He’s the ‘same man’.
[9]-Having skirted the damning, [1b] comment about finding only one wife, having answered only for JSJr’s statements before [1a] and after [1c], Shirts repeats the conclusion he began with--Shirts ‘honestly’ doesn’t see the criticism
[10]-But just in case anyone might have notice that he did not address the damning statement itself about JSJr being able to find only one wife, Shirts goes on to attack the reliability of the entries in the History of the Church–of course, the reason for 3 or 4 scribes was to give JSJr an alibi against the possibility of false accusations and affidavits. JSJr trusted his alibi to these scribes, but the mopologist impugns the reliability of what those scribes wrote, at least when as with this issue the HoC entry doesn’t sync with the correlated, whitewashed version of Church history.
[11]-After diverting the readers attention and never addressing the damning comment by JSJr that he could only find one wife, Shirts closes ironically by claiming that it is the critics who won’t look at Mormonism honestly.
Kerry, honestly?
| |
|
How to navigate:- Click the subject below to go directly to the article.
- Click the blue arrow on the article to return to the top.
- Right-Click and copy the "-Guid-" (the Link Location URL) for a direct link to the page and article.
Archived Blogs:
| |
Articles posted here are © by their respective owners when designated.
Website © 2005-2021
Compiled With: Caligra 1.119
HOSTED BY
 |
| |
|
