Blake Ostler Erupts with Rage on Faith-Promoting Rumor

[Guest]

I read Ostler’s interview of McMurrin today (1981). He presented as a balanced and thoughtful individual at the time - and with an admitted heretic no less - as a student, if I am reading the preface correctly.

So, what happened?

When and why did Ostler don the mask of the raving lunatic thug who blasts anonymous heretics as cowards? What traumatic event catalyzed his metamorphosis from nuanced student caterpillar into the Menacing Moth of Mormon Madness?

[_Tom]

I remember when Blake Ostler was considered a heretic by certain BYU religion faculty members. (See his 1987 Dialogue article.) Those were the days.

Would someone mind asking smallaxe on Faith-Promoting Rumor to identify Dr. Peterson’s six articles?

[_Symmachus]

I read Ostler’s interview of McMurrin today (1981). He presented as a balanced and thoughtful individual at the time - and with an admitted heretic no less - as a student, if I am reading the preface correctly.

So, what happened?

When and why did Ostler don the mask of the raving lunatic thug who blasts anonymous heretics as cowards? What traumatic event catalyze his metamorphosis from nuanced student caterpillar into the Menacing Moth of Mormon Madness?

Ostler doesn't come through as a personality in this interview; if I were cynical, I would focus on this fact:

Blake Ostler, a student at BYU in the fall of 1981 when the interview was conducted, is now a law student and member of the Law Review staff at the University of Utah.

No surprise that he would be respectful towards McMurrin, a high ranking administrator of the university where he might (and did) end up applying for admission to its law school. Or maybe he didn't think McMurrin was a coward.

Thanks for calling our attention to this interview, esteemed professor. I was delighted to read McMurrin's views and how he developed them. Some are very close to my own, especially this:

My point is that I came to the conclusion at a very early age, earlier than I can remember, that you don't get books from angels and translate them by miracles; it is just that simple. So I simply don't believe the Book of Mormon to be authentic.

[_Dr Moore]

No surprise that he would be respectful towards McMurrin, a high ranking administrator of the university where he might (and did) end up applying for admission to its law school. Or maybe he didn't think McMurrin was a coward.

My point is that I came to the conclusion at a very early age, earlier than I can remember, that you don't get books from angels and translate them by miracles; it is just that simple. So I simply don't believe the Book of Mormon to be authentic.

On reflection, this is an insightful link if Ostler were posturing for admission to the Utah law school. But he was at BYU, and I was willing to be generous in recognizing that he followed a long train of respectful questions, despite the obvious distance from orthodoxy and potential risk by association.

I too very much enjoyed reading McMurrin’s synthesis of how to constructively engage with Mormonism as a non literal believer.

[_lostindc]

When I was still in the Church I couldn’t believe the love his writings received. I heard individuals call Blake the Mormon Plato.

Based on Blake's online history of swearing, degrading individuals and crude language, I think a more appropriate comparison would be that Blake Ostler is the Andrew Dice Clay of Mormonism.

Also, I would like to add that Blake's fake hairpiece looks horrendous.

Agreed

I would also add that Blake doesn’t believe in the truth claims of the Mormon church and he plays word games to ensure his beliefs have a place at the Mormon table. I am willing to even state that Blake is a fraud.

[_Philo Sofee]

I read Ostler’s interview of McMurrin today (1981). He presented as a balanced and thoughtful individual at the time - and with an admitted heretic no less - as a student, if I am reading the preface correctly.

So, what happened?

When and why did Ostler don the mask of the raving lunatic thug who blasts anonymous heretics as cowards? What traumatic event catalyzed his metamorphosis from nuanced student caterpillar into the Menacing Moth of Mormon Madness?

I would take a stab at saying a few things happened as I perceive it. One, the internet. No, sincerely! Now everyone has a voice and control is truly gone for any organization to control information.
Two, Ostler's life work his magnum opus on the Mormon Theology of God is, for the most part, simply ignored. For one thing it didn't get very much printing at all, and I was astoundingly fortunate to get the entire set! And, the public just simply aren't interested in seeing yet another Christian sect get some points up on a different Christian sect, in this case, Mormonism up some points on traditional Christianity. The world yawned at the years of laborious and loving labor Ostler went through and it appears to be very ungrateful and unimpressed. THAT can be a canker on an ego soul, without question. After all, he was banking on making quite a few conversions with it, and so far as I can gather, no one has joined Mormonism based on Ostler's life long and loving work. And none of us are going back either based on his magnum opus. This is a no win for Ostler, a no relevance that tanked years and years of his life.

He missed a fantastic opportunity when the window actually opened for him of taking on the 4 Horsemen of atheism when the New Atheism was born, he could have tackled them, but instead went for the blase and truly beyond knowledge of 99% of humanity against Christian philosophers of which literally no one reads, and literally no one gives a flying flip about.

Now that the New Atheism made its case, there is no point in contending with them, they have moved on as has everyone else. But what it did is bring in a fresh and brighter crop, much more nuanced and intellectually able atheists of whom the Mormon apologists refuse to touch with a ten foot pole (to steal a Nibleyism from the old man himself).

I have in mind Michael Martin. I have in mind Kai Nielsen, and James A. Lindsay, Marshall Brain, Richard M. Gale, Nicholas Everitt, Matthew S. McCormick, David Eller, Scott F Aikin & Robert B. Talisse, A. C. Grayling, and those sophisticated philosophical atheists, not the loud mouth blabber mouthed publicity seeking ones that Mormons every now and then pretend to take on, but merely comment on a mere weakest argument they present, and continue to cherry pick even the weakest atheists! I have yet to see a Mormon actually take on the strongest arguments of Dawkins, Hitchins, or Stenger yet. Harris I am not that familiar with, unfortunately. And you certainly won't see them even dare get into the cage with the above named litany of philosophical atheists I have listed, not with an integrity and actual wholesale refuting in a thorough manner as they did against Evangelicalism in the old FARMS days. But Evangelicalism was a weak kneed little 5 year old boy compared to the atheists, so it was blase and a cake walk to smash them to smithereens. Not so the atheists.

In short, deep down, Mormon scholars and apologists recognize that they have lost the war, but are afraid to admit it. I know that fear. I know that fear. They are unaware that there really is a spectacular bright and loving and enduring light at the end of the tunnel, but they can't, nay, they won't look to it. It is sincerely no fun being on the losing side, and realizing that one is forced to defend it (the sunk cost fallacy), and hence their joyless existence and apologetic. It's drab, it means precious little, there is no enthusiasm, because there is no way out (in their minds). When one loses hope, anger prevails, one lashes out irrationally and emotionally, and with a great deal of vehemence, and that is where we see they are at. Thank goodness the anger phase can fade out as they move forward into the greater light, if they allow themselves that option.

[_Shulem]

In short, deep down, Mormon scholars and apologists recognize that they have lost the war, but are afraid to admit it. I know that fear. I know that fear. They are unaware that there really is a spectacular bright and loving and enduring light at the end of the tunnel, but they can't, nay, they won't look to it. It is sincerely no fun being on the losing side, and realizing that one is forced to defend it (the sunk cost fallacy), and hence their joyless existence and apologetic. It's drab, it means precious little, there is no enthusiasm, because there is no way out (in their minds). When one loses hope, anger prevails, one lashes out irrationally and emotionally, and with a great deal of vehemence, and that is where we see they are at. Thank goodness the anger phase can fade out as they move forward into the greater light, if they allow themselves that option.

That was inspired.

Well said.

[_Philo Sofee]

In short, deep down, Mormon scholars and apologists recognize that they have lost the war, but are afraid to admit it. I know that fear. I know that fear. They are unaware that there really is a spectacular bright and loving and enduring light at the end of the tunnel, but they can't, nay, they won't look to it. It is sincerely no fun being on the losing side, and realizing that one is forced to defend it (the sunk cost fallacy), and hence their joyless existence and apologetic. It's drab, it means precious little, there is no enthusiasm, because there is no way out (in their minds). When one loses hope, anger prevails, one lashes out irrationally and emotionally, and with a great deal of vehemence, and that is where we see they are at. Thank goodness the anger phase can fade out as they move forward into the greater light, if they allow themselves that option.

That was inspired.

Well said.

Thank you, that is very kind to say....

[_Dr Moore]

Two, Ostler's life work his magnum opus on the Mormon Theology of God is, for the most part, simply ignored.

What a fascinating observation.

Ironically, my kids are watching The Incredibles tonight. Ostler is Sindrome, the ignored genius who turns into a bitter thug.

If it’s true that the opposite of Love is not Hate, but Apathy, then we have a rationale to feel sorry for Ostler. It’s still no excuse for his behavior.

[_Philo Sofee]

Two, Ostler's life work his magnum opus on the Mormon Theology of God is, for the most part, simply ignored.

What a fascinating observation.

Ironically, my kids are watching The Incredibles tonight. Ostler is Sindrome, the ignored genius who turns into a bitter thug.

If it’s true that the opposite of Love is not Hate, but Apathy, then we have a rationale to feel sorry for Ostler. It’s no excuse for his behavior.

Agreed. The apologists can't even stick around anymore to have soup and crackers with Vogel to see if something can work out with the GAEL and papyri but instead sulk off and complain bitterly about the church ignoring their own scholars. But its the CHURCH who is doing this, no wonder they are so nasty and intemperately condescending little brats intellectually these days. Pouting because Big Brother wants to ditch em, and they feel left out, so they lash out.

However, they have attempted for decades now to demonstrate beyond any reasonable doubt that they do in fact, have brains. Then why not use them to converse with others who see things differently than they do? Because they have no empathy. Was that empathy for apostate Christians of the Evangelical flavor we saw them mock, spit upon, refute, dissuade, make merry of and slam?! No. The over arching rule was seek out and destroy. Hence, they are peevish bullies to all others, which is what we are seeing these days. No one can take them seriously. They refuse to be serious about the truth. They refuse to even try to. I can almost see myself feeling sorry for them... almost.