Aristotle once told his disciples the parable of shooting the lawyer:

"There was a rich man who had son. Now this son was accused of fraud, he had claimed to be able to perform certain services of translating documents. Many persons gave him large sums of money to translate documents. But lo, at a later date it was conclusively shown that he incorrectly translated documents. Upon discovering this the persons who had given him money were pissed off, yea royally pissed off. And so they sued the son of the rich man."

"And so the rich man hired a lawyer to defend his son in court. The lawyer could provide no defense for the actions of the rich man's son, for it was obvious to all that he could not translate documents. And behold, it was discovered at trial that the son of the rich man was also of a low moral character: for he had sex with teenagers, continually lied to his wife, and attempted to set up a micro-nation in which he would be crowned king. And behold, the court discovered that he had attempted to engage in destruction of evidence. And lo, the judge was pissed off, yea royally pissed off."

"Seeing the son of the rich man had no defense, the lawyer engaged in all manner of dubious practices. He assaulted the plaintiff's witnesses with all manner of ad hominem. He continually used moral equivalence arguments to combat the charges that the son of the rich man was of low moral character. He impugned the honesty and character of the plaintiff's witnesses, at times accusing them of hatred of the rich man, at other times he brought up that they couldn't possibly be trusted because they lied to their sixth grade teacher about the missing status of their homework (and lo, who could trust such vermin he asked). Verily, he even attempted to change the meaning of words, arguing that 'translate' doesn't really mean translate, but really means to give various random thoughts about which one felt very good."

"And lo the trial was going very badly. Sensing his son was about to lose, the rich man had the lawyer shot. And verily, the rich man held a press conference where he proclaimed the innocence of his son and said, 'It is only because of the inept and foul nature of the lawyer that you thought my innocent son is guilty. Yea, verily, a better lawyer will be able to show you the honest and true nature of my son.'"

And the disciples of Aristotle asked the master, "Ari, what meaneth this?"

And lo, Aristotle answered, saying, "Lo, the rich man is the LDS church, his son is Joseph Smith, and the lawyer is DCP. He that hath ears to hear, let him hear: shoot not the lawyer who hath a crappy case, but rather blame the ne'er do well being defended."

Marvelous, Aristotle. Quite succinct too.

Seems DCP, like many a lawyer, does not have much to work with given the facts presented.

It is classic litigation strategy to try the case on the facts if the law is against you, try the case on the law if the facts are against you, and if the facts and the law are against you, impugn the lawyer who is handling the other side of the case and his witnesses. DCP has had neither the law nor the facts on his side. Now he has been shot.

Do you think the 'rich father' already has another lawyer queued up?

Great OP.

The DCP saga works remarkably well as a parable when couched in terms of lawyers and the law.

Hope DCP has the opportunity to see your work here. The insights contained therein might do him some good.

I don't get it. What does this have to do with anything?

The only thing missing is that the son and his Uncle Sidney told the lawyer what the best defense would be. It just didn't work very well because in the end the son was guilty.

If you were going to do the story as a fable instead of a parable what animal would you use to represent Joseph Smith?

It's either in the queue or currently being vetted. They are going to want someone with a very different temperament this time around, and they may take a long time to make sure they're getting something they want.



I don't have many ideas for a fable. Perhaps someone can write one (hint, hint)?

To survive as a gunslinger, you gotta know that he who hires you will eventually turn on you. It is, after all, a gun fight that he wants.

I think this is one of the things that people have been missing here. The focus has been exclusively on DCP and his behavior. He's an easy target, in fact too easy of a target. Other people share the blame for this whole fiasco.

The parable wasn't meant to absolve DCP of responsibility, his online and offline behavior vis-a-via apologetics has not been good, and ultimately he alone is responsible for his own actions. But I do think his situation makes his past actions more understandable, not defensible, but more understandable.

I might be wrong, but the impression I've gotten is that Peterson is not a lawyer. Maybe that's what the LDS Church needs, to have the claim that Joseph Smith was a fraud go to trial, and then have a lawyer defending the Church against a prosecutor. It'd be nice to see the LDS Church get a fair trial.

Kevin,

parable: a short story that uses familiar events to illustrate a religious or ethical point; allegory

In other words, when Jesus was talking about pearls and mustard seeds, he really didn't care about pearls or mustard seeds.

Oh, I understand what you were doing, and that you weren't talking about a real lawyer or a real rich man and his son. I'm just saying that a real lawyer, and a real fair trial, may be precisely what the LDS Church needs.

How has it not had a fair trial in the court of public opinion? How have LDS officials, members and sympathizers been prevented from 'presenting their case'?