Defending the Absurd takes a toll?

[MG 2.0]

Wut? Lmao.

Fox and CNN indeed.

I’m referring to his writings and other material he has posted over the years.

http://blakeostler.com/

If he has gotten himself involved in vitriolic apologetics I haven’t reached out to that quarter in order to read it. If he has, that is unfortunate.

Care to post links in which he has taken the low road rather than the high road?

As it is, however, he has put out some good stuff on Mormon theology and the like.

FOX and CNN both seem to have an agenda. And if one watches one of these networks exclusively they will have ‘blind spots’.

Regards,
MG

Some of Ostler’s apologetics:

https://web.archive.org/web/20090312000 ... etics.html

My guess is that a number of younger folks have never heard his name along with John E. Clark and others because of this closed loop I’m referring to.

Here is a talk given by John E. Clark given years ago:

https://youtu.be/7TgkBv7QQwE

Nowadays many of the apologetics (John E. Clark didn’t consider himself one) of yesteryear have gone down the memory hole and now we have ‘curated apologetics’ produced by critics that have a closed loop agenda and typically don’t step outside of it.

Hearing what they want to hear and disregarding the rest.

And then they come up with these ‘smoking guns’ that are anything but. Age of the internet and bubbles.

Regards,
MG

[MG 2.0]

Care to post links in which he has taken the low road rather than the high road?

https://energeticprocession.wordpress.c ... mment-5289

Threatening to get somebody kicked out of their doctoral program over an online dispute seems like "low road" behavior to me.

He also threatened to cancel his SLT subscription over a dispute with Ardis Parshall (who happened to work for SLT at the time), although I can't find the link right now.

Really Karen-ish behavior.

Thanks for that link.

Blake and Perry Robinson did go the rounds with each other. To judge and condemn Ostler on the basis of this heated interchange is rather myopic, however. I think the larger volume and production of his apologetics is not to be ignored. Although some may do just that because he had momentary bouts of defensiveness when others hit below the belt. Robinson has some pretty harsh words towards the church and its members.

Anyway, I won’t belabor the point that I think that there is too much emphasis placed on vitriolic instances that one can find within apologetics which can cause a disorientation and then ignorance of the large volumes of productive and mannerly presentations and writings that literally fill books.

Regards,
MG

[Morley]

https://energeticprocession.wordpress.c ... mment-5289

Threatening to get somebody kicked out of their doctoral program over an online dispute seems like "low road" behavior to me.

Thanks for that link.

Blake and Perry Robinson did go the rounds with each other. To judge and condemn Ostler on the basis of this heated interchange is rather myopic, however.

For the most part, I'm willing to give apologetics a soft pass--but I dunno, that's pretty nasty.

[Physics Guy]

I think it must be hard to keep one's cool as a religious apologist because the dispute between apologists and skeptics is more than just a matter of one side being right where the other is wrong. The apologists believe that some things are not merely true, but worthy of profound reverence. The skeptics are apt to believe that those things are not merely wrong, but foolish, or even despicable. So the issues are emotional for apologists.

The emotional tension may be higher for apologists who are actually straining to convince themselves. Serenely confident believers probably wouldn't get too upset about mortal slights against their omnipotent deity, but if you're secretly teetering in a faith crisis, or even just eyeing a crisis from a distance that isn't quite far enough to consider as safe, then a skeptical comment that would be perfectly civil by normal standards may sting enough to seem harsh, and warrant aggressive response.

There may also be emotions involved for some skeptics, but a lot of skeptics don't really care that much. So apologists may seem angrier in general.

I can believe that Mormon apologists in particular might have a tough time in these ways. Joseph Smith seems to get more reverence from Mormons than anyone besides Jesus gets in mainstream Christian sects, except perhaps for Mary in Roman Catholicism. Critics, on the other hand, call Smith a deliberate con artist and a sexual predator; people rarely say such harsh things about other religious leaders. The respect gap between believers and skeptics is wider for Mormonism, I think, than for most other religions. It's probably comparable to the gap that you find for movements that Mormons themselves would call cults.

And I think that some things that Mormon apologists have to defend are just harder to defend than other religious beliefs. The extra strain of having to uphold things you're struggling to believe for yourself may be greater for Mormon apologists, too.

So I figure that anger is probably an occupational risk for Mormon apologists. A few seem to manage it well, but even the ones who don't may not really just be angry people by temperament.

[MsJack]

Blake and Perry Robinson did go the rounds with each other.

"He only gave as good as he got" has forever been the defense of choice for ill-behaved apologists, but that's objectively not true in this case. They both said nasty things, but only one of the said "I'll try to harm your career then," and it wasn't the Greek Orthodox guy.

To judge and condemn Ostler on the basis of this heated interchange is rather myopic, however. I think the larger volume and production of his apologetics is not to be ignored.

I'll absolutely condemn apologists who attempt to visit consequences on people's careers because they disagreed with them online. That's never acceptable, as Sister Nelson would say, Not Even Once.

The point isn't that the whole of Blake's work ought to be ignored because of it; it's that you picked a bad example of a professional and well-behaved apologist. Blake is known for lashing out at people vitriolically. If you want more examples, we both know I have them.

[Bill_Billiams]

I haven't heard of any of those people but if they know how to behave properly while doing apologetics then that is good.

I know guessing motivation can be a hazardous endeavor but I'm truly interested as to why, in my experience, so many mopologists are willing to stoop so low. I don't see that kind of behavior nearly as much in other groups I've interacted with.

If you’ve centered your investigations of the church and the restoration narrative within the confines of certain venues (such as this one) it doesn’t surprise me that you have never heard of these people and a number of others I could mention. It’s sort of like CNN and FOX News. You’ll hear what you want to hear depending on the source.

Ideally it’s a good thing to reach out and try to gather information from many different sources. This is problematic. Many folks, apparently such as yourself, are not reaching out to look at apologetics from different angles and varied sources. As such, we are seeing a somewhat jaundiced view of Mormonism from certain quarters.

And as they say, the squeaky wheel gets the grease.

The age of the internet and closed loops.

Regards,
MG

My investigation has largely been limited to stumbling upon a situation where, due to a case of mistake identity, Robert Boylan doxxed my friend. I've watched these active and aggressive mopologists just link to each other in closed loops as you said. But you also seem to be trying to downplay the issue as well. In my opinion, it's widespread.

[Bill_Billiams]

I’m referring to his writings and other material he has posted over the years.

http://blakeostler.com/

If he has gotten himself involved in vitriolic apologetics I haven’t reached out to that quarter in order to read it. If he has, that is unfortunate.

Care to post links in which he has taken the low road rather than the high road?

As it is, however, he has put out some good stuff on Mormon theology and the like.

FOX and CNN both seem to have an agenda. And if one watches one of these networks exclusively they will have ‘blind spots’.

Regards,
MG

Most of his Facebook interactions are vapid vitriolic condescending twaddle. Previously on this board (I'll see if I can find the link) someone shared where he threatened to have a non-Mormon kicked out of their graduate program for making a rather milquetoast theological criticism of Mormonism on their own blog.

He's a "smartest guy in the room, that's compensating for not being the smartest guy in the room" that tries to bully people who disagree with him, or Mormonism.

I've never seen him take the so-called "high road" when dealing with someone directly that is being critical of the Church, or any of his sacred cows.

The worst mopologists I've encountered seem infatuated with Ostler and I've seen him engage in some real vitriolic behavior on Facebook as well.

[Bill_Billiams]

I think it must be hard to keep one's cool as a religious apologist because the dispute between apologists and skeptics is more than just a matter of one side being right where the other is wrong. The apologists believe that some things are not merely true, but worthy of profound reverence. The skeptics are apt to believe that those things are not merely wrong, but foolish, or even despicable. So the issues are emotional for apologists.

The emotional tension may be higher for apologists who are actually straining to convince themselves. Serenely confident believers probably wouldn't get too upset about mortal slights against their omnipotent deity, but if you're secretly teetering in a faith crisis, or even just eyeing a crisis from a distance that isn't quite far enough to consider as safe, then a skeptical comment that would be perfectly civil by normal standards may sting enough to seem harsh, and warrant aggressive response.

There may also be emotions involved for some skeptics, but a lot of skeptics don't really care that much. So apologists may seem angrier in general.

I can believe that Mormon apologists in particular might have a tough time in these ways. Joseph Smith seems to get more reverence from Mormons than anyone besides Jesus gets in mainstream Christian sects, except perhaps for Mary in Roman Catholicism. Critics, on the other hand, call Smith a deliberate con artist and a sexual predator; people rarely say such harsh things about other religious leaders. The respect gap between believers and skeptics is wider for Mormonism, I think, than for most other religions. It's probably comparable to the gap that you find for movements that Mormons themselves would call cults.

And I think that some things that Mormon apologists have to defend are just harder to defend than other religious beliefs. The extra strain of having to uphold things you're struggling to believe for yourself may be greater for Mormon apologists, too.

So I figure that anger is probably an occupational risk for Mormon apologists. A few seem to manage it well, but even the ones who don't may not really just be angry people by temperament.

For a lot of the worst mopologists it seems like they are indeed moving from faith crisis to faith crisis and the lashing out helps them cope with it.

[malkie]

I don't know if I'll ever be able to find a link to this, so anyone can feel free to say it never happened, but here, according to my memory, is what an apologist said to a critic, perhaps 12-15 years ago - paraphrased by me:

"I know who you are, and where you work. I wonder what your boss would say if they knew that you were spending working time criticising the church."

According to my ever-diminishing memory, this incident was mentioned on this board.

Does anyone else have a similar memory?

[drumdude]

I don't know if I'll ever be able to find a link to this, so anyone can feel free to say it never happened, but here, according to my memory, is what an apologist said to a critic, perhaps 12-15 years ago - paraphrased by me:

"I know who you are, and where you work. I wonder what your boss would say if they knew that you were spending working time criticising the church."

According to my ever-diminishing memory, this incident was mentioned on this board.

Does anyone else have a similar memory?

Louis Midge, Bill Hamblin, and Daniel Peterson all doxxed Kishkumen thoroughly here:

https://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/60 ... le/page/5/

While researching that I do recall stumbling upon a very similar threat like the one you mentioned. But I do not remember who the post was threatening.