Blake Ostlerism

[drumdude]

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.

[MG 2.0]

Do you mind sharing who this "Prominent Apologist" is?

Over time/place there have been various ways of approaching doctrine/practice that met...meet...the needs/motivations/culture that people find themselves in. I think of the gradual and then sudden (comparatively) changes that occurred between ancient times/meridian of time/modernity. People were just different...and yet the same. I think we've seen an evolution in our understanding so many things in the modern era. Especially since the advent of science/technology. I wouldn't even expect to see things understood/applied today even compared to ten years ago.

It's back to the line upon line, precept upon precept concept. Here a little, there a little. Some things appear to have been erased or changed beyond description, yet the core concepts/teachings remain the same. Trying to dovetail the way the ancients thought about creation, culture, philosophy, here and now vs. hereafter, or what have you, with the way we understand things now creates conundrums and dilemmas that can either take us to a 'cave in' of faith or a place where we try to understand how 'the world works' in conjunction with faith/religion.

Blake Ostler was a modern pioneer in this sense.

Sounds like this apologist needs to catch up with the times! Is he/she still active in the church?

Regards,
MG

[drumdude]

He's definitely had an outsized impact on Church theology considering most people have no clue who he is. Here's one of his works that appeared in Dialogue advocating for the idea that Joseph Smith didn't just translate the Book of Mormon, but had a hand in authoring/"expanding" it:

https://www.dialoguejournal.com/wp-cont ... N01_68.pdf

[MG 2.0]

He's definitely had an outsized impact on Church theology considering most people have no clue who he is. Here's one of his works that appeared in Dialogue advocating for the idea that Joseph Smith didn't just translate the Book of Mormon, but had a hand in authoring/"expanding" it:

https://www.dialoguejournal.com/wp-cont ... N01_68.pdf

I've mentioned multiple times over the years that I read/looked at/thought about the Expansion Theory back when Ostler first put it out there. Yep, I'm old.

Now you really have my curiosity piqued. Who is this apologist you're referring to?

Regards,
MG

[Everybody Wang Chung]

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.

Wow! Watching Jacob get dismantled was like watching someone try to defend a sandcastle against a fire hose. If White had kept the thumb screws on for five more minutes, Jacob likely would have admitted the only thing unique about the Mormon faith is funeral potatoes. Hilarious!

[Gadianton]

That's a fascinating comment, drumdude. Do you agree with it? I'm completely out of touch with Chapel Mormonism. I had a few glimpses over the last fifteen years via family gatherings that suggested nobody knows about FARMS or Interpreter but everyone knows about Meldrum. But I've never heard a mention of Ostler. Of course, I'm not interacting with "GenZ" members either. I have no idea what they believe, if it's something different.

I guess my biggest question: is this doctrinal or political? My instinct says that the commenter is mistaken, that "GenZ" isn't moving toward "Ostler" but rather, an ample portion of GenZ males are over the moon for social media fascism and trying to get their mugs in the camera and build on common beliefs with evangelicals of the same persuasion. Ostler just happens to be the only guy to try his hand at reconciling Mormon doctrine with some traditional ideas -- ideas that the afore blog owner also seems to agree with and he's def. not GenZ. I think Ostler's material is a small amount that a person could sit down and absorb in an afternoon. It's the easy opportunity -- hey this guy who is pretty smart says we're more closely aligned then you think on basic doctrines that have nothing to do with what's really important, politics; my good brothers of the cross -- wink, wink, I really mean swas. But as you point out, one of the lead bros got totally owned and probably knows zero about theology and has no fundamental interest anyway, whereas Ostler is fundamentally interested in theology and doctrine on its own terms.

And if this is mostly about politics and almost nothing to do with doctrine, then isn't there a problem in that GenZ is relatively left leaning compared to Ostler's generation? And what about gender? How many young Mormon trad wives are out there begging to be smacked around? Again, my suspicion is that one slice of GenZ is far more vocal than other slices. And wouldn't this be an opportunity lost as Brigham is a great symbol for authoritarian alignment?

Correct me if I'm wrong here, drumdude, if this really, really is about doctrine and theology.

[MG 2.0]

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.

I think it's important to bring in the idea/concept of 'moral imperative'. Many younger Latter-day Saints...along with some of us old fogies, feel that arguing about religion and theology spiritually harmful in one way or another. That it can breed contention (and is it worth it). 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.

God is not 'locked' into the ways of man.

In modern society we have an inclination to not rock the boat beyond a certain point when it comes to our friends and neighbors and even fellow ward members. Unity matters more than doctrinal distinctiveness. You can see examples of that especially in the last twenty years or so. As a result of the learned...and now implicit... moral imperative to do this we, as a Mormon community, look for ways to smooth over differences, adopt ecumenical language, and treat some of our peculiar doctrines and past practices as optional or symbolic...but not necessary for association within the 'house of faith'. Evolution is an example. Belief in the Great Flood is another. The list goes on.

Fundamenalists...the non-Ostlerites...have a heck of a time with moving forward with the moral imperative to 'go along to get along'.

Of course, some things are nonnegotiable.

So, who is that apologist you're referring to?? It's not a secret is it? I mean, you did say it was causing them some discomfort to see the way things have been progressing/moving. It's not a sin to think that is it?

Regards,
MG

[MG 2.0]

I had a few glimpses over the last fifteen years via family gatherings that suggested nobody knows about FARMS or Interpreter but everyone knows about Meldrum.

Huh? Different family gatherings that those I've been to. Different strokes for different folks, I guess. I have a book here in my study that I've borrowed from a brother-in-law called, "Exploring the Lands of the Book of Mormon". A zillion pages long. Mesoamerica all the way.

I doubt he's heard of Meldrum. Unless I mentioned it to him at some point.

Regards,
MG

[MG 2.0]

I think Ostler's material is a small amount that a person could sit down and absorb in an afternoon.

It wasn't that way for me. I read the Dialogue essay when it first came out. It wasn't an "afternoon" thing.

Regards,
MG

[MG 2.0]

I'm completely out of touch with Chapel Mormonism.

Why would, from what I've been saying on this thread (if you agree) would you think that Chapel Mormonism today would necessarily look like the Chapel Mormonism from yesteryear?

And it's not as though one was 'right' and the other is 'wrong'.

Ostler, in some ways, was a man before his time. Nowadays, there are more young people...and others...that have been conditioned to be a bit more open minded and less restrictive in the way they approach things.

I've mentioned it before, but I'll mention it again, I think that there are some of the older critics who are still stuck in the past with a fundamentalistic/black and white way of viewing the world.

That doesn't even make sense to me. The world has never been black and white. There are so many colors and shades of gray. Obviously, some things don't change...but they are few and far between, I think.

Again, I say, Ostler was a pioneer. I wonder how many GA's go with some of the translation theory he developed way back when. It's had a chance/time to mature.

Regards,
MG