Blake Ostlerism

[MG 2.0]

When looking at one event/narrative as being absurd vs. not we might want to consider that we may be looking through different lenses. We are using scientific, archaeological, and theological lenses to evaluate the evidence. There will be some tension between literalist interpretations that have come down to us through time and modern academic evidence. There will obviously be some inconsistencies and things that don't correlate.

Why would we expect anything different?

The Great Flood has no evidence in the global geologic record of a worldwide flood.
Biological logistics does not lend itself towards a worldwide flood. I'd mentioned plant life and animal life earlier.

Many of us look at the flood story as being one of many that have come down to us through history. A regional flood is very likely what happened in real time.

Jaredite barges were a localized event. A small group of people traveling from point A to point B.
A transoceanic voyage is a historical possibility.
The Book of Mormon's historical framework ends up having a higher degree of internal validity/reality compared to a worldwide flood that contradicts known physics and biology.

To say that both examples are comparable is inaccurate. One is completely absurd the other is based in possible reality, not wishful thinking. In regard to what Coriantumr actually saw we ought to be aware of the fact that he would not have understood the underlying biology of whatever happened in that event. We have possibilities of reflexive action having to do with the brain stem being severed and resulting in involuntary muscle reactions. There may have been 'gasping for breath' as a result of the lungs expelling remaining air through the windpipe due to spasms rather than actual breathing. The truth is, we weren't there.

Critics will look at the historical record and often forget what I've mentioned in the first paragraph of this post.

Regards,
MG

P.S. Splashdown!!!! Woo Hoo!!!

[Gadianton]

I watched a few minutes of the video, there is no way I would listen to these two for two hours. I clicked in for the first few minutes. Both these guys suck. Hansen went on and on about how reprehensible it is that Calvinists believe in original sin. That a baby born into the world deserves the fires of hell or whatever. The problem is Mormons believe the exact same thing. Mormons also believe that babies born into the world deserve hell and would in fact go to hell, they just believe Jesus died and covered for original sin. In other words, there is nothing good about the baby per se, the baby is rotten to the core, it is through the tender mercy of Jesus that the baby will get a free pass for Adam's transgression, but without Jesus, the baby goes to the flames. White apparently after all this time doesn't know enough about Mormonism to correct Hansen on this point.

[I Have Questions]

When looking at one event/narrative as being absurd vs. not we might want to consider that we may be looking through different lenses. We are using scientific, archaeological, and theological lenses to evaluate the evidence. There will be some tension between literalist interpretations that have come down to us through time and modern academic evidence. There will obviously be some inconsistencies and things that don't correlate.

Why would we expect anything different?

The Great Flood has no evidence in the global geologic record of a worldwide flood.
Biological logistics does not lend itself towards a worldwide flood. I'd mentioned plant life and animal life earlier.

Many of us look at the flood story as being one of many that have come down to us through history. A regional flood is very likely what happened in real time.

Jaredite barges were a localized event. A small group of people traveling from point A to point B.
A transoceanic voyage is a historical possibility.
The Book of Mormon's historical framework ends up having a higher degree of internal validity/reality compared to a worldwide flood that contradicts known physics and biology.

You’re doing that thing again. Where you pretend to be comparing apples to apples, but instead of apples in one bowl, you sneakily swap them out for oranges. You say that the Great Flood is absurd because there is no physical evidence for it. What is the physical evidence for Jaredites? You’ve seen the description for the Jaredite barges - completely sealed except for two holes, one at the top and one at the bottom. Filled with people and animals, including bees and elephants. Regularly flipped upside down. In there for a year. What evidence is there that supports that?

To say that both examples are comparable is inaccurate. One is completely absurd the other is based in possible reality, not wishful thinking.

The Jaredite barge narrative is based on reality?

In regard to what Coriantumr actually saw we ought to be aware of the fact that he would not have understood the underlying biology of whatever happened in that event. We have possibilities of reflexive action having to do with the brain stem being severed and resulting in involuntary muscle reactions. There may have been 'gasping for breath' as a result of the lungs expelling remaining air through the windpipe due to spasms rather than actual breathing.

Your mitigation for “Coriantumr” can be equally applied to the author of the Great Flood narrative. At least, if you were being intellectually honest and even handed. If you are going to rationalise one, than you must rationalise the other.

The truth is, we weren't there.

We weren’t there for the Great Flood either.

I note your staunch defence of Ostlerism and your jettisoning of your Church to sustain your belief in Ostler. It’s an interesting sight. But flawed. It is a fact that The Great Flood narrative is no less and no more absurd than the Jaredite Barge narrative and the Zelph narrative. In fact, Ostler himself has suggested that the Jaredite Barge story is fictitious. Ostler argues that the story could be more symbolic or allegorical rather than a factual event. You clearly disagree with Ostler now.

[huckelberry]

I watched a few minutes of the video, there is no way I would listen to these two for two hours. I clicked in for the first few minutes. Both these guys suck. Hansen went on and on about how reprehensible it is that Calvinists believe in original sin. That a baby born into the world deserves the fires of hell or whatever. The problem is Mormons believe the exact same thing. Mormons also believe that babies born into the world deserve hell and would in fact go to hell, they just believe Jesus died and covered for original sin. In other words, there is nothing good about the baby per se, the baby is rotten to the core, it is through the tender mercy of Jesus that the baby will get a free pass for Adam's transgression, but without Jesus, the baby goes to the flames. White apparently after all this time doesn't know enough about Mormonism to correct Hansen on this point.

Gadianton,

I certainly understand choosing not to watch. I did watch not because I like these two. I agree with neither of them but was curious as to how it would function.

The disagreement was Mormons believe all babies are covered by Jesus's death; White that only a selected few are covered. Hansen proposed that choice which gives no chance to those not selected is unjust.

A very common argument.

[Limnor]

Mormons also believe that babies born into the world deserve hell and would in fact go to hell, they just believe Jesus died and covered for original sin.

I need a doctrine refresh—I thought Mormon thought rejected original sin?

[huckelberry]

Mormons also believe that babies born into the world deserve hell and would in fact go to hell, they just believe Jesus died and covered for original sin.

I need a doctrine refresh—I thought Mormon thought rejected original sin?

As I learned original sin is considered to be covered by the atonement so we are judged for our own sins and not Adam's. I never heard talk of total depravity. (Gadianton's experience is much more conservative than mine??)

[Limnor]

I need a doctrine refresh—I thought Mormon thought rejected original sin?

As I learned original sin is considered to be covered by the atonement so we are judged for our own sins and not Adam's. I never heard talk of total depravity. (Gadianton's experience is much more conservative than mine??)

Hmmm. That explanation implies there is some sort of “guilt” to be covered. My understanding was the atonement covered the effects of the fall—death and such—and not an original inherited sin from Adam.

It makes me wonder what baptism at 8 really accomplishes. And why 8? Is there some universal change that happens at age 8 that requires remission?

[huckelberry]

As I learned original sin is considered to be covered by the atonement so we are judged for our own sins and not Adam's. I never heard talk of total depravity. (Gadianton's experience is much more conservative than mine??)

Hmmm. That explanation implies there is some sort of “guilt” to be covered. My understanding was the atonement covered the effects of the fall—death and such—and not an original inherited sin from Adam.

It makes me wonder what baptism at 8 really accomplishes. And why 8? Is there some universal change that happens at age 8 that requires remission?

Limnor, speaking from memory age eight is considered to be the age of accountability, a person becomes accountable for wrong actions. With Mormons baptism is linked to confirmation, hands of a priesthood holder on the head delivering the gift of Holy Ghost. Mormons tend to think of ongoing growth and change not immediate transformations. Baptism commences a journey with the help of the HG.

Protestants are given to more detailing on this question in order to avoid Catholic views. Mormons are not as concerned with purity of saved by grace through faith.

Some others here have much more recent experience in Mormon teachings than I. They could notice if I am overlooking things.

[I Have Questions]

Hmmm. That explanation implies there is some sort of “guilt” to be covered. My understanding was the atonement covered the effects of the fall—death and such—and not an original inherited sin from Adam.

It makes me wonder what baptism at 8 really accomplishes. And why 8? Is there some universal change that happens at age 8 that requires remission?

Limnor, speaking from memory age eight is considered to be the age of accountability, a person becomes accountable for wrong actions.

Yes, that’s the Church’s practice. I’ve never understand what action(s) specifically, an 8 year old can be considered accountable for, that a 7 year old can’t.

[Doctor CamNC4Me]

The bottom line is without an intervention babies are thoroughly rotten to the core, and will be cast aside like trash. Like, these people believe that had there not been a magical mystery intervention the baby they hold in their arms is total garbage that God would condemn to Heck.

Talk about a sick ideology and a way to make people fundamentally despise themselves.

- Doc