Blake Ostlerism

[I Have Questions]

I think it is accurate to say that Blake Ostler is an apostate, in that he is in public opposition to the leaders of the Church on a number of core things. For example, Heavenly Mother. The current President of the Church, and the doctrinal position of the Church, is that there is a Heavenly Mother. Parker has stated, publicly that those claims are not true. Some examples of his apostate views…

Ostler has a dismissive attitude toward LDS prophets and apostles in the examples below. This includes his:
- categorizing Brigham Young’s theology as “a disaster for the most part”
- rejecting Dallin H. Oaks’ statement about Heavenly parents as “simply false”
- correcting Neal A. Maxwell on divine timelessness
- denigrating the 8th Article of Faith
- calling for more “sacred silence” over Heavenly Mother than even LDS prophets exercise
- denying that Heavenly Mother is doctrine
- rejecting the dominant reception history and downstream theology of the King Follett Discourse by prophets and apostles
- rejecting all major post-1845 LDS prophetic and apostolic views of spirit birth
- claiming that the Family Proclamation is “not doctrine”
- describing the First-Presidency-vetted Gospel Topics Essays as “embarrassing”

He is a critic and an enemy of the Church. If he puts his hand up to sustain the leaders during General Conference, he’s lying. Any member promoting Ostler to others, is likewise promoting apostasy.

[Doctor CamNC4Me]

Best description I’ve seen of B.O.:

A loutish, self-satisfied lawyer who strives with the yearning of a wounded god to punish before the sight of true believers their enemies for the sin of expressing views he doesn't approve of: could there be a finer incarnation of the history of Mormon theology?

- symmachus

Anyway. It’s too bad B.O. has passed.

- Doc

PS- What? When I said passed I meant passed more fart bubbles off as theology. Also, is Midgley still alive?

ETA: The joke above is a reference to when he said Midgley had passed, and when corrected, he came up with some ridiculous excuse because B.O. can’t possibly EVER be wrong about anything, because when he was seven-years-old he read the biggest, thickest book ever of philosophy, or math, or religion, or whatever.

[Marcus]

This is exactly what many prominent Mormons are coming to believe...

From Mormon Missionary to Catholic (Isaac Hess)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sAdsnUjObsI

I watched all the sessions of Conference this last weekend with my wife. Same doctrinal positions and gospel teachings, on the whole, as I remember from years ago. I think that one's own 'grounding' plays a part in how one views the views of others. And whether or not one is looking at things contextually...in reference to the link drumdude posted in which only one perspective had been posted.

We often see the things we want to see and disregard the rest. Sorry. Repeating myself. (Simon and Garfunkel reference).

Regards,
MG

But earlier in the thread, mg posted this:

...When it comes to the 'nuts and bolts' of various doctrines and policies I think that, except in some areas, God has not placed an absolute moral imperative upon us to see things in a black and white view that might naturally vary from one time/place or another depending on cultural upbringings, natural inclinations among groups with various family structures, etc., etc...

Lol. That is exactly what the Mormon religion has always done, placing a 'moral imperative' on things Mormons do that are different from culture, family structures, upbringings, etc. That's why he sees no change in conference messaging.

[MG 2.0]

Something I ought to clarify a bit and go into a bit more detail. Especially in a thread having to do with "Ostlerism". I'm not arguing that the church has never taught things in a black and white way. It's fairly obvious that it has and still does. What I'm trying to get across is that because of time and place we may see God placing degrees of "moral imperative" as requirement for progress/salvation/exaltation. An example of this dynamic that is readily apparent is the history of polygamy. It was black and white and yet it was not. And now it is not and yet it is...if you dig deep...but it doesn't necessarily mean what some folks might think it means.

Not every teaching carries the same weight because we live in a world in which people's cultural and personal backgrounds influence how the interpret those teachings. That's what God has to work with. Some folks, including some here I would imagine, think that God might be able to wave a magic wand and make things happen. Make things happen even against the wills/agency that belong to independent creatures that have their own viewpoints/outlooks of reality and their place in it.

Of course, the church has historically emphasized strict standards. Simply by saying "not everything is absolute" doesn't mean I'm skipping past or glossing over that history. I'm not. What I am doing is describing how I understand the relationship between doctrine, culture, and individual independence/understanding and 'place' in the world. Some things are 'one size fits all' and yet they aren't until they are. God knows he's working with malleable clay.

Earlier I was talking about Conference having felt rather "same" and consistent to me. The messages and teachings fairly constant. Yes, for some, even boring. The core remains the same even though for many the understanding might evolve and expand over time and distance from one culture to another. This has been so throughout history. Some folks say that Joseph would not recognize the church today. Maybe not. But he would recognize the key/core teachings and first principles remaining bedrock to belief.

Some posters seem to have an aversion to thinking outside of the box and keep coming back to what one person said here or another said there. That can be problematic because one can be locked in place and unable to move forward when further light/knowledge/understanding comes along. One can show that this is true with examples from history including our own day.

Some folks fall apart and become brittle and call Ostler or anyone else that brings in another way of viewing things as an apostate. If the same thing happens within the field of science, we call that science. We test and we prove or disprove.

We don't discard.

Critics are often too quick to judge, in my opinion. They come back and reply/say, "Well, that's just a bunch of 'stuff' you're saying." No meaning, no relevance to MY reality...the one and only true reality, of course .

Regards,
MG

[I Have Questions]

Something I ought to clarify a bit and go into a bit more detail. Especially in a thread having to do with "Ostlerism". I'm not arguing that the church has never taught things in a black and white way. It's fairly obvious that it has and still does. What I'm trying to get across is that because of time and place we may see God placing degrees of "moral imperative" as requirement for progress/salvation/exaltation. An example of this dynamic that is readily apparent is the history of polygamy. It was black and white and yet it was not. And now it is not and yet it is...if you dig deep...but it doesn't necessarily mean what some folks might think it means.

What a truly incredible paragraph…that final sentence is a doozy. Does anyone know what MG is actually saying?

[MG 2.0]

Paragraphs should not be isolated. They ought to be looked at within the context of everything else that is being said.

That is a constant problem here. Especially with one poster that clips, pastes, and uses ellipses. On top of that, then reinterpreting most of what I said into something that sounds almost the opposite of what I said.

Crazy.

Look at things that EVERYONE says in context of the surrounding paragraphs. Especially if there is more than one paragraph. (I know this sounds contradictory, but gosh, a reader actually did just that.

I'll bow out to let other make comment on my paragraph...but please don't leave out, as was done, the rest of what I said.

Thanks in advance.

Regards,
MG

[Limnor]

Something I ought to clarify a bit and go into a bit more detail. Especially in a thread having to do with "Ostlerism". I'm not arguing that the church has never taught things in a black and white way. It's fairly obvious that it has and still does. What I'm trying to get across is that because of time and place we may see God placing degrees of "moral imperative" as requirement for progress/salvation/exaltation. An example of this dynamic that is readily apparent is the history of polygamy. It was black and white and yet it was not. And now it is not and yet it is...if you dig deep...but it doesn't necessarily mean what some folks might think it means.

What a truly incredible paragraph…that final sentence is a doozy. Does anyone know what MG is actually saying?

I gave up on that entire post.

[malkie]

Paragraphs should not be isolated. They ought to be looked at within the context of everything else that is being said.

That is a constant problem here. Especially with one poster that clips, pastes, and uses ellipses. On top of that, then reinterpreting most of what I said into something that sounds almost the opposite of what I said.

Crazy.

Look at things that EVERYONE says in context of the surrounding paragraphs. Especially if there is more than one paragraph. (I know this sounds contradictory, but gosh, a reader actually did just that.

I'll bow out to let other make comment on my paragraph...but please don't leave out, as was done, the rest of what I said.

Thanks in advance.

Regards,
MG

O MG - I just have to comment directly on this one.

Do you know what's worse than a "poster that clips, pastes, and uses ellipses"? One who clips, pastes, and fails to use ellipses to indicate that he has removed/ignored a lot of material. The one that you see when you look in the mirror. It's one of your common practices on this board.

Sure, you'll say that you're not the only one doing that, but it's a bit rich for you to make that complaint. Mote & beam.

ETA: I've been assuming that you know why writers use ellipses - was my belief misplaced?

[MG 2.0]

Paragraphs should not be isolated. They ought to be looked at within the context of everything else that is being said.

That is a constant problem here. Especially with one poster that clips, pastes, and uses ellipses. On top of that, then reinterpreting most of what I said into something that sounds almost the opposite of what I said.

Crazy.

Look at things that EVERYONE says in context of the surrounding paragraphs. Especially if there is more than one paragraph. (I know this sounds contradictory, but gosh, a reader actually did just that.

I'll bow out to let other make comment on my paragraph...but please don't leave out, as was done, the rest of what I said.

Thanks in advance.

Regards,
MG

O MG - I just have to comment directly on this one.

Thanks. I might have hoped to get a reply with a bit more ‘meat’…something substantial regarding my earlier comments…alas, that is/was not to be.

Regards,
MG

[huckelberry]

This comment recently appeared on a Prominent Apologist's blog:

Emblematic, I think, of this undercurrent of entropy, is not just the cloudy situation around our statistics, but the substantive doctrinal drift I've seen in Gen Z. They have made of themselves acolytes of Blake Ostler, rather than Pres. Young, something I find both bizarre and possessed of a sort of intellectual elitism, which recovers in large part as far as I can tell, the God of Greek and Medieval Philosophers.

Boundaries of ontology dashed to pieces by Joseph rebuilt and refortified under new terms, and it seems to me that it is not easily disassociated from the lackadaisical approach young people may be taking towards various aspects of Church custom and moral calculus. Between the extraordinary desire to wear less clothes, indulge in tattoos and accrue piercings, and this domination of a particular non-authoritative philosophical mind, the Church is rapidly becoming something radically divergent from what I recall only 10 years ago. Not merely in means of implementation, but in doctrine as well. I cannot easily divorce this orthodoxic drift, from the other issues I'm seeing.

More and more Mormons and ex-Mormons are realizing this to be true: "the Church is rapidly becoming something radically divergent from what I recall only 10 years ago."

Last Friday, James White was in a debate on Calvinism with Jacob Hansen. Jacob Hansen is part of this Gen Z group, you could call them "Ostlerites."

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SGRBtsTN0r0

Now it's not uncommon for Mormons to shirk away from defending the Mormon conception of God. Because that conception of God is fundamentally different and incompatible with traditional Christianity. But Hansen was ill-prepared to deal with James White pressing him on it.

White got Jacob to admit he thinks the King Follet Discourse was just an incorrect opinion. That the temple ceremony is metaphorical. Elohim and Jehovah are just characters in a symbolic liturgical rite.

All of this fits into the larger trend of Mormons distancing themselves from the distinctive teachings of Mormonism, trying to shrink Mormonism down into just another generic Christian denomination.

For better or worse I watched through that entire debate. I thought Hansen handling of the LDS God question was a bit of a train wreck. He was hoping to discuss from a broader perspective, specifically noting a large percent of trinitarian Christians reject some of Calvin's predestination doctrines. Of course that is true even I doubt the 97 percent idea. White asked how Mormon God has power and authority, how he can know right from wrong. The authority question is a very weak or uncertain point and always has been in LDS teaching. It has fluctuating ideas from the beginning.Hansen tries to avoid the tangle. It is a mess. I think Hansen was correct to bring in human experience as basis for knowing right from wrong.

But I do not share Whites hyper fundamentalism