RFM Destroys Mormon Lawyer Apologist [Radio Free Mormon 339] 

I went to Provo High School with Steve Densley!!! I was so freaked to see his picture at the beginning of the video and figured it was just someone that reminded me of him, but it's really him! I remember once in 9th grade, the Algebra teacher asked me to teach the class, and Steve said to me kind of jokingly, "Getting a bit too big for your britches, eh?". Now, who's too big for their britches!?!? I guess it doesn't surprise me who he's become. He was very charismatic and self-assured. I remember he was on the debate team too. The one thing I still remember from that is that the affirmative has the burden of proof. The church's narrative is the affirmative here, so they have the burden of proof. He's ignoring that very basic principle of debate. The church has no proof, no leg to stand on. I, as the negative, do not need a counter story to disprove the narrative of the church. The church narrative falls by its weight given the lack of evidence in its favor. Would sheer belief, raw emotion, really qualify as proof in a court of law???

You can only prove that the church is true by changing the meaning of the word “proof”. This guy has the most gaslighting form of apologetics I have ever heard. As an attorney myself, I am ashamed of him for bastardizing our profession to set himself in a place of intellectual authority and then pulling the logical rug out from under the argument.

Thanks for taking Steve down to RFM town 👊🏻

"gaslighting for righteousness" is the new "choose the right"

Knowledge is a justified belief in a claim which is demonstrably true. All knowledge is belief but not all belief is knowledge

I thought you said “Land of Confusion,” and now I have the 1986 Genesis song stuck in my head! 😂

Boyd K. Packer ("Apostle" guy): “A testimony is to be found in the bearing of it." This is how low they are willing to set the bar. "But, I don't think I really saw the defendant running out of the bank with a gun". "Well, that's what you think now. But just keep repeating to everyone that you did see the defendant doing that. It will become true because a testimony is to be found in the bearing of it." "Oh...okay. Didn't know that's how these things worked. Now that you mention it, I DID see exactly what you told me I saw."

Listening to Densley talk about know vs. believe reminds me of an old Steve Martin routine where he talks about how funny it would be to play a trick on a little kid by teaching them the wrong words for everything. On the first day of school he will raise his hand and say, “May I mambo dogface to the banana patch?”

A comedian and a filosopher with witt and intullect.. slamdunk Wish Mr RFM would take on other problems outside mormonism! Thank you

This guy is where the term sleazy attorney comes from

I have attraction to smart men who can navigate a complicated case (not involving the truth of the “church;” the argument is exhaustingly easy to prove). RFM, I only have eyes for you.

I left the church very young. Honestly it was pure rebellion, my "priesthood holder" betrayed my family and everything fell apart. I lived the atheist, morals are relative, there are no absolute truths kind of lifestyle for about 15 years. Now that I'm in my thirties and have quit drinking, and seen the direction society is headed, I can't help but believe it can't be true either. It's simply not working. For myself or society. Since getting back into investigating normal, run of the mill Christianity, things have greatly improved for me. I can't help but wonder if we're throwing the baby out with the bath water. Of course no one on this Earth will ever KNOW the truth of the universe, but I can't help but believe faith in a higher order than humanity is necessary for humans to thrive. Something has gone terribly wrong in society and I can't help but notice it correlates with the decrease in faith. I don't know. Of course. Just a thought.

I live in Utah and have heard crickets my whole life.

Thank you. Watching from Alaska.

Thank you, my friends, for taking the talk apart. If I had heard it myself, I would probably have discounted it; nevertheless, by hearing it in the presence of you two, I still discount it. As a composition teacher, I demanded that my students go into detail, using evidence from their work and from what their audience might be thinking to make or refute the students' points. Densely, in my present understanding, certainly failed to convince me that his thesis warranted my time and effort to follow his argument to a conclusion that I could accept.

The Jehova's Witnesses can use Steve's tactic to "prove" the JW church is the one and only true church....OR Baptist, or Catholic or Scientology.

RFM, these programs with you and Carah are a whole lot more fun than other programs I have seen you do. Blah blah freakin blah. I love it.

😂😂😂"Psycho Ward Radio, Dr Dementia and Jesus Jr."👏🏽🤣💀

Chad and Lori would agree. Personal belief trumps everything. 😮

When did Kwaku debate RFM? I would LOVE to see THAT!!!???❤️❤️❤️

Awesomeness you 2.

Steve Densely is a master at what’s called “Word Salad” what a clown !

Bill Clinton’s “It depends on what the meaning of the the word ‘Is’ is”

I have often thought, “how could this corporation that masquerades as a church, ever gain traction?” Just as RFM stated, “Joseph Smith died at the exact time to keep this corporation going..” Carah followed up by saying that “Brigham Young ruled the corporation with an iron fist.” Star Trek, the next generation did a show on the dangers of a religious person becoming a martyr. Not that RFM would ever watch a show in the next generation but it was a good one. Carah followed up by saying that Brigham Young ruled the corporation with an iron fist. These are a couple of favorite lines of mine from the show. Good job on a great show!

A mass of confusion ! That is the beauty of it !

Sounds like Pontius Pilate “What is Truth.” That didn’t go over well.

With all do respect Kara you look absolutely beautiful without makeup, also I respect your honesty

2:13:56 🤣🤣 Love the video!! Thanks RFM & NUANCEHO what a collaboration!! 🙏🏻🙏🏻🤟🏼😮‍💨🔥☝🏼📚🎊🍾💪🏼🤟🏼🙏🏻

People are leaving the church not because they found out that the church wasn't true, but that the question itself is irrelevant.

"If you can't show it, you don't know it."

"True" always implies belief, not conclusory knowledge. That is because "true" has no meaning without "false." Like "hot" and "cold," the terms define one another. "True" and "false" merely describe the condition of a belief. If s belief corresponds to something that exists in the universe, it is a true belief. If there is no such correspondence, the belief is false. Language is amazing in that it can describe territory that does not exist. Since we cannot "know" but only "believe" in our verbal maps, the whole business is nonsense.

There are people who believe the world is flat. So then the world is, in truth and fact, flat? Belief and known, empirical facts are two very different things.

My first thought when seeing the Christopher Columbus portrait was: I know who this portrait is generally SUPPOSED to represent. Maybe that's why Mormonism never really took hold with me.

Damn we re going to Greece in July ❤ Great show guys!

Also, you can go “hmmm I’ve never seen a cricket. I want to find one so that I know that they’re real.” AND you can find one!! It’s not that hard to find one! 😂

Here's another thing that really gets me: the evidence of lack (i.e. you go looking and don't find it) is not equivalent to the lack of evidence (you never went looking). There's a big difference between "there's no evidence (because nobody looked for it)" and "there's no evidence (we looked all around and found nothing)". The latter actually IS meaningful data.

So you don’t have to know what “proof” means, you just need to believe it means what he says it means.

1:54:05 “The man who views the world at 50 the same as he did at 20 has wasted 30 years of his life.” ― Muhammad Ali

I've spent a lot of time in a courtroom. I picture this guy trying to sell this case with this talk, not going to happen not a prayer.. Anyway, as far as a witness to the truth? Most all the witnesses to the book of Mormon saw it in their minds eye, not physically, lets start there. All relatives or friends of the Smith family. That would never stand up in a court of law. But if you believe in visions and magic or mushrooms ok. what ever you chose to believe. I respect those who witness their truth of the book of Mormon the LDS narrative, their own truth, their testimony as their own and not to push it on others. God's gift to them. But if a person chooses not to believe the LDS narrative, they are ridiculed and guilted by LDS leaders, members and this guy? I'm sorry, Repent for not believing the documented restoration of the LDS church and how it came about? It's a choice. After 200 years The Mormon church is less than 2 percent of the world, many not active. This guy is really trying to guilt people back. It's Sad, Shane Jensen judges others testimonies and beliefs. I think this is wrong and not his place. I believe in God and Jesus Christ but not the Mormon narrative of Scripture, especially the Doctrine and Covenants. This is my testimony. God bless all.

I live in UT and hear crickets all the time!

I lived in UT my whole life and I've heard crickets plenty. Sure, some areas more than others.

Nah rfm that 1:35 comment was outta pocket 😂😂😂😂

Carah, you can with some bit of further participation in talks such as this with RFM, you too can both think and speak like RFM and other intellectuals do. Clear, logical, straightforward, using language that might give RFM a run for his money.

Tapirs?? They have such a proboscis.

Yo RFM: This Mormon apologist lawyer's entire premise reminds me of Mark Twain's line: "Having faith is believing in something you just know ain't true." Also, several times in this presentation, RFM states that the lawyer wants the issue of the truth of Mormonism to remain a "draw" or a "hung jury." That is exactly what the Mormon apostle (and lawyer) Dallin Oaks said in a 1993 speech to FARMS entitled "The Historicity of the Book of Mormon." Early in studying my way out of the church around 1997, I was reading whatever I came across that would help me determine if the church was true or not. I had never studied much about the issue of the BOM's authenticity, so I fully expected to read Oaks' listing of some actual historical evidences. Sadly, there were none. In 2002, I was invited to speak at a conference in SLC on Mormon issues. In my remarks, I mentioned my reading of Oaks' speech and my reaction to it. So here is what I said about it 22 years ago: Early in my studies, I came across a speech by LDS apostle Dallin Oaks which was published on the FARMS website. The speech was titled "The Historicity of the Book of Mormon." At that time, I was still wavering on whether the whole Mormon thing was true or not. So when I saw that title, I thought, "Well now, here's an apostle, and a respected attorney and state supreme court justice. He's going to talk about some of the historical evidence that those anti-Mormons say doesn't exist." But when I read the speech, I was sadly disappointed. There wasn't a single word of "historicity" in the entire speech. Instead, it read more like a lawyer's plea to a jury to exercise reasonable doubt in a case wherein the facts were overwhelmingly against his client---his client being the Book of Mormon. To quote from Mr. Oaks' speech: "In this message I have offered some thoughts on about a half-dozen matters relating to the historicity of the Book of Mormon." Actually, he didn't state a single fact concerning the Book of Mormon's historicity, only his "thoughts." Then he said: "On this subject, as on so many others involving our faith and theology, it is important to rely on faith and revelation as well as scholarship. I am convinced that secular evidence can neither prove nor disprove the authenticity of the Book of Mormon. Those who deny the historicity of the Book of Mormon have the difficult task of trying to prove a negative." Upon reading this, my first thought was, "Wait a minute here. He said he was going to talk about the 'historicity of the Book of Mormon.' But now he's saying that you have to rely on 'faith' and 'revelation' to prove the authenticity of a supposedly historical document? I'm sorry, Mr. Oaks. Either the Book of Mormon is authentic history or it isn't. One shouldn't have to rely on 'faith' or 'revelation' to know if the Book of Mormon is authentic history, any more than you should have to rely on faith or revelation to know that the Romans invaded Britain, or that King Tut was fond of gold. Historical items should be verified by historical and/or physical evidence. Mr. Oaks' comments about "proving a negative" were actually the opposite of the way that principle operates. Oaks asserted that it is up to those who deny the historicity of the Book of Mormon to prove that it isn't. To the contrary, the burden of proof for the authenticity of the Book of Mormon is on its proponents, rather than on its detractors. Mr. Oaks also stated: "Honest investigators will conclude that there are so many evidences that the Book of Mormon is an ancient text that they cannot confidently resolve the question against its authenticity, despite some unanswered questions that seem to support the negative determination. In that circumstance, the proponents of the Book of Mormon can settle for a draw or a hung jury on the question of historicity and take a continuance until the controversy can be retried in another forum." Did you get that? Oaks boasted that there are many evidences that the Book of Mormon is an ancient text---but he neglected to mention a single one of them. And then, he sums up his argument by declaring that the debate over the Book of Mormon's authenticity is a draw or a hung jury! Of course, Oaks' remarks were nothing more than doublespeak, which lawyers and politicians are expert at. He wants you to think he's saying something of substance, when he really isn't. End quote from my 2002 speech. It's kinda funny that the lawyer Steve Densley is using the same flawed reasoning and lawyerly tactics that his fellow lawyer Dallin Oaks was using in 1993.

Always enjoy your analysis and insights on matters RFM. Decades ago I read "The BofM on Trial". In the intervening time I've learned of the overwhelming evidence, that in my mind, makes the case against the BofM and The Church an open and shut case. Curious RFM since you are a trained lawyer and know both sides of the arguments, what is the strength of the case against The Church and do you feel it is extremely likely an unbiased jury would decide against The Church's truth claims?

Rfm where can I see your old apologetics talks?

I believe I am an addict. Now what?

Steve Densley is my 2nd cousin 😂

Even slightest critical thinking reveals the actual message of the Densley talk is, "Here's how you can convince yourself that the church is true". For instance, the only way the Columbus thing matters is when talking to an audience that is not only biased toward not calling out the false analogy, but also not noticing that illustrating the false pre-drawn conclusion actually works against his argument, not for it (as Carah and RFM pointed out). And the cricket analogy was beyond absurd. Who, at any age, would hear crickets all around them and turn to someone else and say, "I don't believe in crickets because I can't see them."? Not only is that story ridiculous enough on its face, but it would not have taken that much effort to find and see one of the crickets. They are there and they can be seen. It's this kind of nonsense that makes me question every experience or anecdote brought up in nearly every Mormon talk or presentation as very possibly being nothing but more Paul H. Dunnism's. You just cannot trust those people not to fabricate and exaggerate anything, at any time. Lying for the Lord is simply the single most enduring principle of Mormonism. What I find particularly interesting about these efforts is the fact that word vomit like that talk is a huge part of Mormonism's problem. I happened upon FAIRMORMON several years ago doing some online research and ended up sickened and dismayed that not only was there issue after issue after issue with church history and truth claims, but the apologetic responses were pretty much exactly like this Densley talk, redefinitions and wordplay thrown on top of one gigantic pile after another of misdirection, obfuscation, irrationality, and out-right lies.

Obviously, the bar has been set too low...and that's why I keep spilling my drinks. But seriously, the real question that true believers should always ask themselves IS whether the bar has been set too low. We have young people traveling around the world declaring in no uncertain terms that they "know--absolutely know--even with every fiber of their being" that whatever it is that the Church claims is true...is true. And at the same time, these same testifiers often don't know what it is that the Church is now claiming as truth and especially don't know what it has claimed in the past. And there have even been leaders who have essentially told such unknowledgeable "testifiers" that they should persist in claiming to know things even if they don't know them.

So, every word In every book that exists that you have read is true because it merely exists.

Great to see you working together. Two smart folks. Carah, you could still get a great education, ya know. While you are in Massachusetts, go over to Smith College in Northampton (near the Berkshires) and talk with them about the Ada Comstock program. It’s for women like you. They have an “lab school” for kids like yours too. I used to live nearby.

How many can testify that they know what Joseph smith looks like. Lol

Every one have to believe in something

"A man who views the world the same at 50 as he did at 20 has wasted 30 years of his life.” --Muhammad Ali

Proof for me is, how does the church follow the gospel of CHRIST? Do they teach what the church has taught for 2,000 years? Do they believe that the Bible contains everyhing necessary for salvation?

I listened for a few “contentious” minutes here, then moved on to “Come Follow Me” with Hank Smith & Jon Bythaway and found relief. This weeks episode is uplifting and amazing as always. You won’t find proof here, and you won’t find it anywhere if you don’t want it. You have to want it for yourself and search for it for yourself.

When someone catches God in a jar like someone can catch a cricket I'll believe in God.

This was sold as a “debate”, not just a commentary where you inject your opinions about what was being said.

Carah made this an extremely confusing discussion. There is no reason to think that a portrait of Columbus is actually of him; so what? We have his signature; we have historical documents; and we have the horrible encomienda system that Columbus imposed on the Caribbean. So I'm not sure why he chose Columbus as someone we can't know existed. That is nonsensical.

He’s H.R. Fluff-n-Stuff

Comes now the plaintiff...why R use guys going after Steve. He is a good boy. Worked with him at Fair back in the day. Perhaps the adversarial system of our legal system is not the best parallel in deciding what is "true." I listened to his post and thought it was an interesting analysis...

I think starting from the beginning with Joseph Smith helps know if the church is true. Joseph Smith actions in no way scream Christ like to me. Grooming and bullying children to sleep with you isn’t what God supports! Matthew 18:6. Millstone

He sounds like another Jordan Peterson

moses had aaron

It's gunna be a multiple comments kind of day. Saying things like "we have no evidence Columbus lived other than testaments of people" is just wrong. We have all the outcomes from the acts of Columbus, and the historical artifacts associated with those outcomes. We are all entangled with the life of Columbus in one way or another. TSCC is a completely different matter. There is no physical evidence that TSCC is what it claims to be. There's plenty of evidence that it EXISTS, that it has DONE STUFF, much like with Columbus, but there is very little to no evidence that it has the authority of God on Earth.

If you are going to have an adult in the room with you analyzing a talk maybe you should just sit back more and let them talk so as not to expose your ignorance. You know like “apples to oranges”.

Hey RFM before I deconstruct your very impeccable faith construction I’d like to know where you’re coming from. I mean, I just know what I know and take one step at a time. It seems to work, but if you found something better and are further on that path, I’d like to know. What is your new faith? Of course If you answer this question then you’d have to answer the pesky question next question of why you’re spending so much time tearing my religion down instead of building up your new faith.