Catholic responses to Blake Ostler (Mormon apologist)?

  • Thread starter Thread starter truthseeker32
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
T

truthseeker32

Guest
Hello everyone,
According to many of my Mormon friends, Blake Ostler is the best apologist the Mormon faith currently has, and in their words “nobody has been able to refute his arguments.” I was wondering if any Catholic philosophers or apologists have taken the time to address any of his arguments. The closest thing I have found is this brief dialogue that took place between Ostler and a Catholic philosophy professor here. If nobody has already taken the time to respond to Ostler’s arguments, maybe someone here will take up the gauntlet 🙂
 
I post on several sites, and have not heard any mention of this person.

Might I ask who has said he is the best apologist the mormons have?

Many mormons that I post with seem to think Daniel Peterson is the best apologist for the mormons. But he has been let go from the Maxwell Institute.

If he is who I think he is on another board, then he ain’t all that.
 
Like TwoPeking, I have never heard of him.

Is he really the “best” Mormon apologist if he isnt widely known? Do Mormons pay attention to him?
 
I work in an academic setting so I am hearing it from professors and students. He isn’t as well known as Peterson because he doesn’t have Peterson’s academic credentials, and hasn’t been in the game as long, but he has publications on LDS apologetics sites and journals such as Sunstone and Dialogue. Perhaps nobody has responded because he is off the radar.

Have any Catholics responded to Peterson’s apologetics?
 
truthseeker32 said:
I work in an academic setting so I am hearing it from professors and students. He isn’t as well known as Peterson because he doesn’t have Peterson’s academic credentials, and hasn’t been in the game as long, but he has publications on LDS apologetics sites and journals such as Sunstone and Dialogue. Perhaps nobody has responded because he is off the radar.

Have any Catholics responded to Peterson’s apologetics?
Click to expand...
Peterson posted here briefly. I really do mean briefly.

As I remember, everything he posted was either very caustic in nature, or he tried to demean the poster.

I also understand that Ostler is in someway associated with FAIR/FARMS.

It has been rumored on different boards that the first presidency isn’t thrilled with the directions that have been taking over recent years, or the way they have presented themselves.

Mr. Ostler may be a start in a different direction for them. We will have to wait until he is at least a blip on the radar.
 
truthseeker32 said:
If nobody has already taken the time to respond to Ostler’s arguments, maybe someone here will take up the gauntlet 🙂
Click to expand...
I’m not Catholic so probably shouldn’t respond, but I just wanted to say thank you for pointing out who Mr. Ostler is. I’ve visited his website and listened to the panel discussion on “Are Mormons Christian?” It was an instructive and enjoyable listen.
 
well…I engaged him this morning and have gotten no responses…
 
truthseeker32 said:
Hello everyone,
According to many of my Mormon friends, Blake Ostler is the best apologist the Mormon faith currently has, and in their words “nobody has been able to refute his arguments.” I was wondering if any Catholic philosophers or apologists have taken the time to address any of his arguments. The closest thing I have found is this brief dialogue that took place between Ostler and a Catholic philosophy professor here. If nobody has already taken the time to respond to Ostler’s arguments, maybe someone here will take up the gauntlet 🙂
Click to expand...
Well, I’ve never heard of Ostler referred to as the best LDS apologist, but I am familiar with his work. I own 3 of his books in his “Exploring Mormon Thought” series: Vol 1: The Attributes of God, Vol 2: The Problem With Theism and the Love of God, and Vol 3: Of God and Gods. The last volume was the one I bought first, because it discusses ancient Israelite beliefs on Yahweh/Elohim, lesser deities/Divine Council, and how that relates, in his view, to LDS teachings on the plurality of gods (with a “Head God”/“Most High God” and other lesser, subordinate deities). Of course, the traditional Judeo-Christian response (which I think makes sense in relation to the Biblical story) to such work would be that while yes, ancient Israel did have monolatrous or polytheistic tendencies and history, the Old Testament prophets were constantly calling them back to the worship of the one and only true God.

Also, he argues that the traditional Trinity doctrine is incoherent, the “social Trinity” doctrine is more coherent, and the LDS Godhead as being a “social Trinity” doctrine, and is consistent with the Divine Council context… I found that he really argued against Modalism, and didn’t distinguish between the Persons (or the “who”) and the Being/Substance/Essence (or the “what”) when discussing the Trinity doctrine, so I wasn’t impressed. I do believe that he is regarded as formulating one of the very few LDS Christology frameworks. He generally is seen as more of a “philosopher”.

But anyway, in the grand scheme of things, I don’t think the average LDS is aware of Ostler. I don’t think they’re aware of Peterson either. Most LDS simply don’t care to get involved with apologetics of philosophy (especially when philosophy is often derided, which has temple support in a sense). Perhaps more would be familiar with Nibley (I remember going to a friend’s apartment and seeing a book by Nibley on his bookshelf, and was somewhat surprised). They instead focus on the more “inspirational” sort of writing (just look at what Deseret Book puts out), things that can apply to your life and how to live the gospel.

Hope that helps.
 
LivingWaters7 said:
Also, he argues that the traditional Trinity doctrine is incoherent, the “social Trinity” doctrine is more coherent, and the LDS Godhead as being a “social Trinity” doctrine, and is consistent with the Divine Council context… I found that he really argued against Modalism, and didn’t distinguish between the Persons (or the “who”) and the Being/Substance/Essence (or the “what”) when discussing the Trinity doctrine, so I wasn’t impressed.
Click to expand...
From his focus on the “social Trinity” it is apparent he doesn’t understand The Trinity at all and his approach shows he isn’t really interested in anything other than reinforcing the testimonies of believing LDS members. Ostler is a great apologist because he addresses strawman arguments. This “social trinity” thing is just another LDS ploy, “see we believe the same thing you just don’t know it” that we see with things like exaltation.
 
I had Mormons come over my home. I actually invited them over after talking to them on the street.
They are coming again we have to agree on a date/time.
 
shreek said:
I had Mormons come over my home. I actually invited them over after talking to them on the street.
They are coming again we have to agree on a date/time.
Click to expand...
Get onto mormonthink, and be prepared, and make sure you know your own theology. I would be very interested to know how they conduct their lessons these days. They used to have a very set formula of memorised lessons, they now are supposed to ;let the Holy Spirit guide the lessons but I can’t believe there is not a set lesson plan in the backgound. Good luck, and don’t let them run the meeting etc, and if they asky you if they can pray, you take the initiative and do it using our prayers, they will expect the prayer be something along the lines of please Lord show me if these things are true, which of course they are not. In short don’t play their game:)
 
Hello,
I have read about everything I can get my hands on from Ostler. The strength of his arguments has pulled me from positions I previously held.
I think his toughest critique of Catholic thought comes in his second book **Exploring Mormon Thought: Problems of Theism and the Love of God. **In this book he critiques a lot of LDS thought too.

I doubt he would say that his work is primarily apologetic. I think he would claim he is first a philosopher. He has absolutely offered apologetics.
Here is an anti-Aquinas argument that I think dismantles much of Catholic thought on the nature of God. It is mostly my translation of Ostler. It is probably more complex than an argument that would pull anyone from one religion to another, but it is a problem I have with Catholic thought.

1. It is easy to say, “the Bible says, ‘call no man father,’” Catholics call men “father;” therefore, Catholicism contradicts the Bible while claiming to embrace the Bible.
*2. How about this, Catholics believe that God the Father is non-begotten and non-proceeding, God the Son is non-proceeding but begotten, and God the Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son. How is it possible that these three are co-equal? Or co-eternal? *
3. How is it true that God is impassible and unchanging and yet He love us individually.
Or
3a. How can we freely choose between two available options and God know (before or after our choice it does not matter) what we did choose and yet He is impassible.

Now, one is stupid. I have defended Catholicism from such idiocy myself. (But I think LDS are attacked similarly here at Catholic Answers).

Two is more complex, but I am not convinced there is no way out of it.

3a is very philosophy heavy, but I believe Aquinas struggled with this and didn’t solve it.

Let me state it somewhat differently.
  1. All that God is and knows is uncaused. God is what He is independent of anything that is not-God. He possesses Aseity. Or he exists absolutely “a se” of Himself. Nothing predicated of God may be said to be caused by anything that is not-God.
  2. Humans possess genuine freedom. What this means exactly is debated, but Aquinas and Augustine seemed married to the idea that we act by choosing what we think we should such that our actions are caused by our will. We act in a way that is the result of our choice.
  3. God knows all things. While philosophers have debated what “all things” are, nobody would suggest that God does not know what I choose to do yesterday. God knows what I did yesterday.
  4. It is impossible for what I did yesterday to be independently caused by me such that I was free act as I saw fit and for God to know what I choose to do yesterday without some component of His knowledge being caused by my choice.
So if I cause my acts FREELY, God cannot know what I FREELY caused and still not be affected by me.

While it may seem trivial to the casual observer how God could know what I did yesterday, it is not if God possesses Aseity. One might say, surely God can “watch” me make a choice (some might even talk about watching from “eternal time,”) but to observe me do something is to be affected by me and God is not.

The reason I link it with #3 is that this is a big deal for me. If God is unchanged, immutable, and impassible; I cannot believe He loves me. Believing God loves me is IMO necessary for having a proper relationship with God. Therefore I reject the idea that God is immutable, impassible, absolutely unchanging, and exists a se. The God I know loves me as an individual and is affected by me. He hears my prayers because I choose to offer them. He feels my love because I express it to Him. He has an I-Thou relationship with me, not an I-It relationship with me.
cont …
 
BTW, I have read
Father Thomas G. Weinandy Does God Suffer?
Here is a brief essay, but I read the book to see if I could reconcile God’s impassibility and His love: http://www.mrrena.com/2004/suffer.shtml
And Eastern Orthodox Scholar: Paul L. Gavrilyuk** The Suffering of the Impassible God**

I cannot make it work (and this is not JUST an axe I hit the Catholic Church with, but a reason that I think Catholicism doesn’t work at least in its most prevalent thought traditions. That God really loves me is much more important than that He is unchanging, immutable, impassible, …).

And if you think the above is easy to understand and want more (much harder to understand by my lights – I only think I get it), I can share why God cannot create ex nihilo men who have “libertarian free will.” This comes from a Catholic philosopher and from Ostler (their conclusions are the same their arguments are almost the same). I could believe in the Calvinistic God that MUST exist if God created ex nihilo and we do not have LFW, but He is not the God who loves in the sense that the real God is.

Anyway, my experience with both of the above arguments is that few Catholics deal with them.
Charity, TOm
 
TOmNossor said:
I doubt he would say that his work is primarily apologetic. I think he would claim he is first a philosopher. He has absolutely offered apologetics.
Here is an anti-Aquinas argument that I think dismantles much of Catholic thought on the nature of God. It is mostly my translation of Ostler. It is probably more complex than an argument that would pull anyone from one religion to another, but it is a problem I have with Catholic thought.

1. It is easy to say, “the Bible says, ‘call no man father,’” Catholics call men “father;” therefore, Catholicism contradicts the Bible while claiming to embrace the Bible.
*2. How about this, Catholics believe that God the Father is non-begotten and non-proceeding, God the Son is non-proceeding but begotten, and God the Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son. How is it possible that these three are co-equal? Or co-eternal? *
3. How is it true that God is impassible and unchanging and yet He love us individually.
Or
3a. How can we freely choose between two available options and God know (before or after our choice it does not matter) what we did choose and yet He is impassible.

Now, one is stupid. I have defended Catholicism from such idiocy myself. (But I think LDS are attacked similarly here at Catholic Answers).

Two is more complex, but I am not convinced there is no way out of it.

3a is very philosophy heavy, but I believe Aquinas struggled with this and didn’t solve it.

Let me state it somewhat differently.
  1. All that God is and knows is uncaused. God is what He is independent of anything that is not-God. He possesses Aseity. Or he exists absolutely “a se” of Himself. Nothing predicated of God may be said to be caused by anything that is not-God.
  2. Humans possess genuine freedom. What this means exactly is debated, but Aquinas and Augustine seemed married to the idea that we act by choosing what we think we should such that our actions are caused by our will. We act in a way that is the result of our choice.
  3. God knows all things. While philosophers have debated what “all things” are, nobody would suggest that God does not know what I choose to do yesterday. God knows what I did yesterday.
  4. It is impossible for what I did yesterday to be independently caused by me such that I was free act as I saw fit and for God to know what I choose to do yesterday without some component of His knowledge being caused by my choice.
So if I cause my acts FREELY, God cannot know what I FREELY caused and still not be affected by me.

While it may seem trivial to the casual observer how God could know what I did yesterday, it is not if God possesses Aseity. One might say, surely God can “watch” me make a choice (some might even talk about watching from “eternal time,”) but to observe me do something is to be affected by me and God is not.

The reason I link it with #3 is that this is a big deal for me. If God is unchanged, immutable, and impassible; I cannot believe He loves me. Believing God loves me is IMO necessary for having a proper relationship with God. Therefore I reject the idea that God is immutable, impassible, absolutely unchanging, and exists a se. The God I know loves me as an individual and is affected by me. He hears my prayers because I choose to offer them. He feels my love because I express it to Him. He has an I-Thou relationship with me, not an I-It relationship with me.
cont …

Which only reflects a lack of understanding of Catholic belief and thought. God loves you, whether you believe it or not. Even if you believe God needs to be like a man to love, doesn’t make it so. As has already been stated, straw arguments. This one being “God can’t love me.” Such is what Mormonism does to the mind. There are underlying assumptions in Aquinas and all Catholic teaching, the first is God is love and created us for the only reason that He loves us.

This is the awe inspiring nature of God. He doesn’t need to love you, he doesn’t need anything. You are loved unconditionally because God is love. To argue otherwise is to these Catholic ears, the whispering of another, as who would want you to believe that God does not love?? And then create arguments for this belief??

Also seriously reflects no understanding of God, who is the creator of all things, including time. Lack of understanding transcendence.

In other words, the usual overlaying of Mormon belief and understanding rather than seeking to understand.

The only things Ostler is demolishing are souls.

Please read, the God of Jesus Christ by Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger.
Click to expand...
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top