Blake Ostlerism

[I Have Questions]

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?

Absolutely fair.

It is worth noting that what MG calls an absurd viewpoint - that there was a global flood that covered the entire earth, is clearly a belief promoted by the Church.

During Noah’s time the earth was completely covered with water. This was the baptism of the earth and symbolized a cleansing (1 Pet. 3:20–21).

MG is now calling his own Church “absurd” in order to defend Blake Ostler.

[MG 2.0]

It seems if more clarification is in order.

While the Church may teach the story of Noah as scriptural, there is no official, mandatory "scientific" position required of members regarding whether the flood was global or regional. Members, such as myself, hold a variety of views on how to reconcile geological evidence with the scriptural record. Having a private view that differs from a literalist interpretation of the Great Flood does not disqualify someone from a temple recommend.

The questions in a temple recommend interview are designed to assess a person's spiritual worthiness and commitment to the Gospel, rather than their academic or historical interpretation of ancient texts.

Regards,
MG

[I Have Questions]

Does the Church teach the global flood as “scriptural” or the, in MG’s view, the absurd idea that it was a real event? Let’s find out from the Gospel Topic section on Noah…

Noah was the son of Lamech, the grandson of Methuselah, and the great-grandson of Enoch. The scriptures list him as the 10th patriarch from Adam.1 Noah was ordained to the priesthood when he was 10 years old by his grandfather Methuselah.2 He was a person of integrity and did all that God commanded him.3

Noah lived at a time when people thought and did evil continually,4 and God called him to be a preacher of righteousness to that wicked generation. When the people rejected his message, God commanded Noah to build an ark, gather animals, and prepare for a flood. Noah and his sons—Shem, Ham, and Japheth—and their wives were the only people on the whole earth saved from the flood.5 After the flood, God made covenants with Noah.6 Noah not only served as one of God’s prophets but was also a ministering angel after he died and brought heavenly messages before the birth of Christ and during the Restoration.7

It is clear that the Church takes the, in MG’a opinion, absurd position that the flood was a real event, that it covered the whole earth, and that Noah and his sons and their wives were the only living people on the earth from that point onwards. Noah also features in the Book of Moses and the Doctrine & Covenants.

Is the narrative of Noah materially different to the narrative of the Jaredite Barges? No, not at all. They are two peas in the same pod. In fact, there are many parallels which some people attribute to Joseph borrowing from the Bible to produce a fictional tale about a fictional people. However, if the Great Flood in the Bible is to be considered absurd, then the Jardeite Barges tale is also absurd by the same measures.

MG is calling his church absurd in order to protect his worship of Ostler.

[drumdude]

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

I think those with a Mormon background are probably more likely to think the historicity of the Book of Mormon is plausible.

Tell anyone who has never heard of Mormonism that Hebrews sailed to the pre-Colombian Americas, built a huge civilization, had massive wars, and disappeared without a trace. They’ll laugh at you because it’s such a ridiculous premise. You may as well say Jesus came to Atlantis to preach to the mermaids.

I saw this in action as an investigator. There’s a reason Mormon missionaries don’t lead with it, and stick to basic feel-good messages.

[MG 2.0]

I think those with a Mormon background are probably more likely to think the historicity of the Book of Mormon is plausible.

That makes sense. They've spent much more time inside the book and also studying its origins/geography/historicity than the average Joe or Jane investigating the church.

I can say with confidence that in my studies of the Book of Mormon I would give it much higher scores in regards to its likely truthfulness/validity than I would the story of a worldwide flood.

Acknowledging that the abridger of the plates seemed to think that there had been a flood his ancestors had known of and been involved in the traditional stories connected with the great waters.

Those folks relied a lot on oral tradition. More than we can possibly fathom/know

I would still maintain that your assertion that the Book of Mormon and Great Flood running head to head in "absurdity" is a bit overblown.

But to each his own, right?

Regards,
MG

[drumdude]

I think those with a Mormon background are probably more likely to think the historicity of the Book of Mormon is plausible.

That makes sense. They've spent much more time inside the book and also studying its origins/geography/historicity than the average Joe or Jane investigating the church.

I can say with confidence that in my studies of the Book of Mormon I would give it much higher scores in regards to its likely truthfulness/validity than I would the story of a worldwide flood.

Acknowledging that the abridger of the plates seemed to think that there had been a flood his ancestors had known of and been involved in the traditional stories connected with the great waters.

Those folks relied a lot on oral tradition. More than we can possibly fathom/know

I would still maintain that your assertion that the Book of Mormon and Great Flood running head to head in "absurdity" is a bit overblown.

But to each his own, right?

Regards,
MG

I'd still argue that for a student of history or anthropology, the idea of a massive, literate, steel-working civilization leaving zero trace can seem just as "absurd" as a world-covering flood.

[I Have Questions]

That makes sense. They've spent much more time inside the book and also studying its origins/geography/historicity than the average Joe or Jane investigating the church.

I can say with confidence that in my studies of the Book of Mormon I would give it much higher scores in regards to its likely truthfulness/validity than I would the story of a worldwide flood.

Acknowledging that the abridger of the plates seemed to think that there had been a flood his ancestors had known of and been involved in the traditional stories connected with the great waters.

Those folks relied a lot on oral tradition. More than we can possibly fathom/know

I would still maintain that your assertion that the Book of Mormon and Great Flood running head to head in "absurdity" is a bit overblown.

But to each his own, right?

Regards,
MG

I'd still argue that for a student of history or anthropology, the idea of a massive, literate, steel-working civilization leaving zero trace can seem just as "absurd" as a world-covering flood.

We’ve yet to hear why, specifically, the Great Flood story in the Bible is absurd, yet the story of the Jaredite Barges is not absurd. MG will never answer that question directly and specifically.

The story of Shiz’s headless corpse standing and gasping for breath is not absurd, but the story of the Great Flood is absurd, because Ostler. A pioneer in Mormon thinking, according to MG. In fact, MG finds Ostler more credible than he finds his own church explanations. I’d go so far as to say MG sustains Ostler more than he sustains Oaks. Which is very interesting.

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. MG is actively promoting Ostler.

[huckelberry]

I have read nothing from Mr ouster all my knowledge of him is second hand from this board. It seems to me he is bravely attempting to clarify tangled portions of LDS doctrine. I think that a reasonable thing though treacherous.

It is difficult for the leaders to change or clarify real !difficulties. Easier to count earrings . Consider blacks and priesthood. Some leaders wanted change while others did not. It was stuck until enough agreed. A further consideration is a leader must respect the existing beliefs of followers. VThey may change some but will quit following g if change is too far. So the leaders shuffle policy, meeting times and image but do not clarify deeper questions.

I was given copy lectures on faith in seminary. It suggests at least direction of clarification. It is in currect disfavor though previously was in favor. With that precedence I suggest the idea that there is an eternal God from which all intelligences derive from so can potentially receive God's power in conjunction with God's moral purpose. The persons who people worship are God's full representatives, authorized possing knowledge and power divine.

I think such a view could maintain LDS distinctive. I could suspect it will be adopted as clarification in the future but of course I don't know. People like ouster may keep the thinking pot stirred without always being right or that is accepted.

[huckelberry]

Continuing, I was thinking about the Hansen, White debate opening this thread. I was unsure what Hansen was trying to say with king Follett . Words were heated and overlapping a bit. It was clear White asserted that the Mormon God was just a man in an exalted position thus lacking authority to declare what is good. I am sure there are bery few Mormons who think God is only a man with a crown and a diploma from temple participation. There is much more to divinity than that so Hansen brings out older DC statements about God's eternal power and knowledge. White rejects that as pre KF thinking. Hansen feels the older statement still valid and in accordance with LDS definition of doctrine it still would be but does it relate to later ideas? Hansen lacked a clear path to tie them together because the church has not clarified.

[Marcus]

...It is difficult for the leaders to change or clarify real !difficulties. Easier to count earrings...

You're a pretty funny guy, huck. I like your sense of humor.