Blake Ostlerism

[I Have Questions]

The historicity of the Book of Mormon is just as absurd as a historical Noah’s ark.

I don't think you can put these on equal footing. You've made the claim, I think it is incumbent on you to prove your claim.

I think the children's Bible story I grew up with of a global flood with Noah taking all animals from across the whole planet two by two into the ark along with all the varieties of plants is absurd.

On the other hand, I can't say the same thing about the Book of Mormon.

I think you may need to correlate, connect, and then show how each of these are comparably absurd.

Regards,
MG

You find the Noah’s Ark story in the scriptures absurd, but don’t find the Jaredite barge story in the Book of Mormon absurd? Have I got that right? You don’t find the story of Shiz’s headless corpse standing up gasping for breath, absurd?

Ostler himself believes that the Book of Mormon is not really a translation of an ancient record, but really a narrative reflecting Joseph Smiths 19th century time and place using an ancient setting as a vehicle to get those 19th century thoughts across. Do you agree with Ostler, that the Church’s explanation of the Book of Mormon is wrong?

Ostler

“Many Book of Mormon doctrines are best explained by the nineteenth-century theological milieu… some doctrines… are simply too developed and too characteristic of the nineteenth century to explain as pre-exilic ideas.”

And

“Some may see the expansion theory as compromising the historicity of the Book of Mormon. To a certain extent it does.”

And

Ostler has drawn attention in some LDS circles for his controversial views, particularly his expansionist approach to the Book of Mormon,5 his rejection of a regress of gods, and his denial of God’s foreknowledge of human choices. He also rejects pre-mortal spirit birth,6 refutes common arguments for a Heavenly Mother, and offers non-standard interpretations of the King Follett Discourse and the Sermon in the Grove.7 Additionally, he teaches an emergent social trinitarianism, asserting that the Godhead eternally emerges as an accidental rather than ontological relational unity.8

Ostler has publicly stated that the doctrine of Heavenly Mother, as explained by the current Prophet Dallin H. Oaks, is “false”. He’s stating that President Oaks is teaching false doctrine. Ostler is quite the heretic. There’s no set of circumstances where one can hold the views Ostler holds AND honestly hold a temple recommend. Ostler cannot honestly call out Oaks as preaching falsehoods doctrine and also claim to sustain Oaks as a Prophet Seer & Revelator.

From your views early on in this thread MG, where you call him a pioneer and a man ahead of his time, state that you cannot disagree with anything he says, you appear to hold Ostler up as more of a Prophet Seer & Revelator than you do, say Oaks. You cannot have it both ways. Either, as Ostler states, Oaks is teaching false doctrine about Heavenly Mother and is leading the Church astray, or you have to accept that it is Ostler preaching falsehoods and leading members stray. Which, in your opinion, is it?

Thanks, in anticipation
IHQ

[malkie]

Once again MG exemplifies the behaviour he has been complaining about.
...

OK then. Settled case. Judge, jury, and executioner. That's got to be a relief, malkie, to get everything off your chest.

This is a link to my off-topic reply to MG:
viewtopic.php?p=2926305#p2926305

[malkie]

Paragraphs should not be isolated. ...

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.
...

My off-topic reply to MG's comment can be found at viewtopic.php?p=2926308#p2926308.

[drumdude]

I don't think you can put these on equal footing. You've made the claim, I think it is incumbent on you to prove your claim.

I think the children's Bible story I grew up with of a global flood with Noah taking all animals from across the whole planet two by two into the ark along with all the varieties of plants is absurd.

On the other hand, I can't say the same thing about the Book of Mormon.

I think you may need to correlate, connect, and then show how each of these are comparably absurd.

Regards,
MG

You find the Noah’s Ark story in the scriptures absurd, but don’t find the Jaredite barge story in the Book of Mormon absurd? Have I got that right? You don’t find the story of Shiz’s headless corpse standing up gasping for breath, absurd?

Ostler himself believes that the Book of Mormon is not really a translation of an ancient record, but really a narrative reflecting Joseph Smiths 19th century time and place using an ancient setting as a vehicle to get those 19th century thoughts across. Do you agree with Ostler, that the Church’s explanation of the Book of Mormon is wrong?

Ostler

“Many Book of Mormon doctrines are best explained by the nineteenth-century theological milieu… some doctrines… are simply too developed and too characteristic of the nineteenth century to explain as pre-exilic ideas.”

And

“Some may see the expansion theory as compromising the historicity of the Book of Mormon. To a certain extent it does.”

And

Ostler has drawn attention in some LDS circles for his controversial views, particularly his expansionist approach to the Book of Mormon,5 his rejection of a regress of gods, and his denial of God’s foreknowledge of human choices. He also rejects pre-mortal spirit birth,6 refutes common arguments for a Heavenly Mother, and offers non-standard interpretations of the King Follett Discourse and the Sermon in the Grove.7 Additionally, he teaches an emergent social trinitarianism, asserting that the Godhead eternally emerges as an accidental rather than ontological relational unity.8

Ostler has publicly stated that the doctrine of Heavenly Mother, as explained by the current Prophet Dallin H. Oaks, is “false”. He’s stating that President Oaks is teaching false doctrine. Ostler is quite the heretic. There’s no set of circumstances where one can hold the views Ostler holds AND honestly hold a temple recommend. Ostler cannot honestly call out Oaks as preaching falsehoods doctrine and also claim to sustain Oaks as a Prophet Seer & Revelator.

From your views early on in this thread MG, where you call him a pioneer and a man ahead of his time, state that you cannot disagree with anything he says, you appear to hold Ostler up as more of a Prophet Seer & Revelator than you do, say Oaks. You cannot have it both ways. Either, as Ostler states, Oaks is teaching false doctrine about Heavenly Mother and is leading the Church astray, or you have to accept that it is Ostler preaching falsehoods and leading members stray. Which, in your opinion, is it?

Thanks, in anticipation
IHQ

Well said.

As I mentioned, Hansen thinks science refutes the historical Noah’s ark. Well it also refutes the idea that there was a massive Hebrew civilization in the pre-columbian Americas.

The only way you can make the Book of Mormon work historically is to shrink it down so small as to have taken place on an area the size of a tennis court. Which is not what Joseph Smith intended when he wrote the book.

Mormonism is just a series of moving goalposts to try and salvage the ridiculous foundational errors that Joseph Smith made. He was just trying to make a dollar and sleep with a lot of women.

[MG 2.0]

I think comparing the "absurdity" of the Book of Mormon and the Great Flood is an absurd comparison.

There is more evidence for the provenance/narrative of the Book of Mormon than there is for the Great Flood.

I think that even some critics would agree.

Regards,
MG

[huckelberry]

As I mentioned, Hansen thinks science refutes the historical Noah’s ark. Well it also refutes the idea that there was a massive Hebrew civilization in the pre-columbian Americas.

The only way you can make the Book of Mormon work historically is to shrink it down so small as to have taken place on an area the size of a tennis court. Which is not what Joseph Smith intended when he wrote the book.

Mormonism is just a series of moving goalposts to try and salvage the ridiculous foundational errors that Joseph Smith made. He was just trying to make a dollar and sleep with a lot of women.

drumdude. There is some sense in your observation about Joseph's purpose but people may pursue a path for multiple purpose. I think an important one and one that appealed to many people so that they became followers was to break out of that fortress of circular logic so strongly held by James White.

White brought up the flood to say God can do things we think are horrible and we must accept it. Hanson declines to accept that demand by declining that God so acted.

[I Have Questions]

I think comparing the "absurdity" of the Book of Mormon and the Great Flood is an absurd comparison.

There is more evidence for the provenance/narrative of the Book of Mormon than there is for the Great Flood.

I think that even some critics would agree.

Regards,
MG

I note your attempted sleight of hand by comparing a single story within the Bible to the entire Book of Mormon. But it hasn’t worked, and actually there is more provenance for the Bible than there is the Book of Mormon. So you’ve shot yiurseof in the foot with that one.

Now do you find the story of the Jaredite Barges and the story of Zelph absurd - yes or no?

[huckelberry]

I think comparing the "absurdity" of the Book of Mormon and the Great Flood is an absurd comparison.

There is more evidence for the provenance/narrative of the Book of Mormon than there is for the Great Flood.

I think that even some critics would agree.

Regards,
MG

MG,
I think it is a close race but you might be correct

[MG 2.0]

Something to keep in mind as I'm responding to other posters. I reply to a poster based upon what they actually said and/or committed themselves to.

I have been responding particularly to what drumdude said.

He may even realize, at this point, that his statement may have been a bit 'off the mark' and overboard.

I suppose we should let him speak for himself.

Regards,
MG

[malkie]

I think comparing the "absurdity" of the Book of Mormon and the Great Flood is an absurd comparison.

There is more evidence for the provenance/narrative of the Book of Mormon than there is for the Great Flood.

I think that even some critics would agree.

Regards,
MG

I note your attempted sleight of hand by comparing a single story within the Bible to the entire Book of Mormon. But it hasn’t worked, and actually there is more provenance for the Bible than there is the Book of Mormon. So you’ve shot yiurseof in the foot with that one.

Now do you find the story of the Jaredite Barges and the story of Zelph absurd - yes or no?

Is it fair to note the dependence of the story of the Jaredites on the story of the Tower of Babel?