Catholic responses to Blake Ostler (Mormon apologist)?

[Ezekiel_Stone]

If you check his posting history, it is obvious he is not here for honest conversation. IMHO

That’s a personal attack. Was that specific enough?

It doesn’t seem very brave, to try to get someone who disagrees with you kicked off the forum. Or to make accusations of dishonesty without specifics. Not very brave at all. Not very becoming for a stalwart defender of the faith.

 

[twopekinguys]

That’s a personal attack. Was that specific enough?

It doesn’t seem very brave, to try to get someone who disagrees with you kicked off the forum. Or to make accusations of dishonesty without specifics. Not very brave at all. Not very becoming for a stalwart defender of the faith.

Who is trying to get you kicked off the forum? I know you aren’t accusing me of this. At least, you better not be.

Making an observation about your posting behavior and how you have not addressed specific responses is not a “personal attack”. It is an observation, and an accurate one at that.

Are you accusing me of calling you dishonest? If you are, I suggest you back it up, or retract it.

The stereotypical persecution card does not play well here.

Sorry buttercup, but facts are facts. Let me, or anyone else know when you’re ready to engage in legitimate conversation and debate.

 

[twopekinguys]

A misepresentation of what I said does not want a response. Is the other Peking guy in the house? I think I like him better.

How have you been misrepresented. You flat out called him an embarassment!!

So, instead of owning up to it, and addressing it in an adult manner, you feel it doesn’t warrant a response from you. I get it. Perfect example of not wanting to legitimately engage.

Your snarky little response about the other Pekin guy is duly noted, and just confirms what I said earlier about not wanting to engage in legitimate conversation and/or debate.

 

[Porknpie]

That’s a personal attack. Was that specific enough?

It doesn’t seem very brave, to try to get someone who disagrees with you kicked off the forum. Or to make accusations of dishonesty without specifics. Not very brave at all. Not very becoming for a stalwart defender of the faith.

I was enjoying this post up until the time I fell asleep in my chair and took a nap. I woke up and see you were banned. :yawn:

One has to use reason and intellect …

• JS married over 30 women
• He married over 10 women who were already married
• He married 14 year olds as a married 30+ year old
• He got in trouble with the law selling Miracle Oil
• He claimed he could find water in the ground using a seer stone
• He claimed he could find buried treasure using a seer store
• He then claimed he translated ancient writings using seer stone
• He claimed to listen to an angel, preaching a new gospel despite the bible telling us not to listen to anyone who would do this. Galatians seems to be written specifically for JS

[BIBLEDRB]Galatians 1:8[/BIBLEDRB]

Reason and intellect says not to follow JS.

In fact, there never was an apostasy in the Catholic Church…never any reason to restore it.

I wanted to say this before you got banned …but I fell asleep

 

[lax16]

You might want to check your fact on that one. What the age of consent was in the United States that time? LOL! Look it up. You would not believe me if I told you. It wasn’t unusual for 14 year old to get married. Blessed Mary herself might very well have been 14 when she married Joseph the carpenter. And it’s far from clear that miss Kimball actually married Joseph Smith, let alone if the marriage was consummated.

Apparently, it was not common for teenage girls to marry at that time in the U.S.
Sorry you got banned, I was just getting ready to dispel the Joseph Smith myths.
I’ll post this anyway.

Since 1890, the U.S. Census has collected “Average Age at First Marriage” information for both men and women. By studying demographic information known to correlate with “Average Age at First Marriage” since 1890, social scientist’s can “look back” in time" and estimate “Average Age at First Marriage” historically. The graph below is a compilation of U.S. Census “Average Age at First Marriage” data since 1890 as well as social research that estimates “Average Age at First Marriage” prior to 1890.

In 1840, the “Average Age at First Marriage” for women is estimated to be between 21 and 22 years of age. In 1950, the “Average Age at First Marriage” dipped to about 20 years of age. By 2005, the “Average Age at First Marriage” had risen to about 25 years of age.

Sources:

U.S. Census Bureau, Table MS-2, “Estimated Age at First Marriage, by Sex: 1890 to the Present”

 

[lax16]

Ah now that is a valid argument. I was responding to the ignorant “14=underage” argument. If Joseph Smith did blust after teenage girls while married, that would be reasonable cause for concern. Or even cause for God taking him out of the picture prematurely, as he did Moses, after the rod incident.

Ezekial - Remember your lectures on being charitable towards one another? That would include not telling someone their argument is ignorant.

I can tell by your knee-jerk reaction toward me and the JS comment that you were not here to work out your journey as you question Mormonism. You are a Mormon apologist.

 

[TOmNossor]

TOmNossor;10516247:

As I mentioned before, I would rather believe like Sabelius if his concept of God was reality than believe like the Catholic Church or the CoJCoLDS.

Surely Serapion’s reaction can be interpreted as “difficult to let go of a false God,” but that is not what Elder Holland believes. Thus he is not using Serapion out of context.
Elder Holland’s point that he borrowed from David Paulsen, was that Serapion worshiped God with a concept inconsistent with the concept presented by the learned Catholic Bishop. Paulsen’s article in BYU Studies and in Harvard Theological Review points out that Serapion and MANY early church folks worshiped God with a concept of Him that is different than that held by Catholic thinkers today. And the concept was more inline LDS thought.
Again, either we LDS are wrong, or Catholics are wrong. I do not want to be wrong.
Charity, TOm
It isn’t about what we’d rather believe, it is about what God has Revealed about Himself. If it is about what you want to believe, you are building a God of your own making, which is idolatry. As I already said, let God be God. God has Revealed Himself as love and as immutable. Theology and philosophy are tools we use to understand what God has revealed, we don’t use them to make God resemble our personal idols or the false god(s) of a non-Christian faith tradition.

We can express the difficulty in understanding what God has revealed, in many ways, such as you are doing. But it doesn’t change Who He IS.

AND

I suspect though the OP aline can confirm, that he means obedience to the truth. I we should seek truth first, no matter our “feelings” on the matter. Like darth Vader suggested, our feelings betray us.

Crazzeto and RebeccaJ,
I am not sure if the post Rebecca responded too was understood completely and Rebecca agreed with me OR it was misunderstood and she was disagreeing.
In any case my point was (at least as far as I can in my fallen state), I am interested in TRUTH, not what tickles my ears.
I do ask God for truth and attempt to align myself to the world as a seeker of His truth, so I hope that I am drawn to the truth. But being drawn to the truth is not something that determines what the truth is for me.
Ostler has provided arguments that pulled me from places where I was more comfortable to places that seemed more likely to be reality concerning God and His universe, so I know that the comfort a doctrine brings is not something that will prevent me from embracing what I believe to be true.
One other thing you may refer to. LDS missionaries often encourage investigators to pray to know the truth and critics of the CoJCoLDS claim that the response future LDS get is just “feelings.” I have “felt” the Spirit before and can say that some aspects of that could be confused with “feelings.” That being said, for me the feeling of the Spirit is most powerful when it comes with “pure intelligence.” The feeling comes with thoughts that I can reasonably determine were not what I expected or even considered.
My favorite of the four horsemen is Sam Harris, but I have been unconvinced that what I feel (and what I see described by the likes of St. John of the Cross), is just neurology tricking me. If I became convinced of this what would I do with the scriptures that say I can ask/knock and that say not even a human father gives a rock.
I am thankful that for whatever reason, my Spiritual witness and my intellectual conclusions have pointed the same way.
Charity, TOm

 

[kimg901]

Ezekial - Remember your lectures on being charitable towards one another? That would include not telling someone their argument is ignorant.

I can tell by your knee-jerk reaction toward me and the JS comment that you were not here to work out your journey as you question Mormonism. You are a Mormon apologist.

A poor one at that.

 

[TOmNossor]

Hi Tom - I do not mean this as an insult.

Jesus came as the Messiah and founded a church. The apostles went out and spread the gospel. 2,000 years later we are still carrying on and called to follow Christ and His Church.

We may not understand every little thing along the way, but we pray and move forward in faith and obedience.

We can question and read, etc, however, we are called to be obedient no matter how we might feel about this or that.

Sometimes we can get too caught up in the questions and the details!
After I read your response I struggled for a long time as to whether I would say anything, whether I would just say “thank you” or whether I would offer what I consider to be true (even though there is apologetic intent in what I say).

I truly read your question and your above response as offered with love for me and little or no apologetic intent. So, Thank You! Truth be told I cannot remember your faith journey, but I did appreciate that you were trying to offer me something of value because you wanted to give of yourself that which is valuable.

Now rather than offer a dissertation (which is my way), I will just say that “following an authority” IMO is what being a Christian involves. Following Christ as our Head. And following His servants through which He organizes His earthly kingdom. Where you and I differ is that I believe logic and reason lead me to be a LDS and not a Catholic. You and I also likely differ in that I believe the Spirit of God has called me to be a LDS and not a Catholic (and you may not be able to believe that is true – may believe it is false).

There is IMO a mistaken American (and European and Western and …) view of Christianity that involves a rejection of obedience to human authorities. If you and I are on the right side of this question, then that is not a problem we have.
Charity, TOm

 

[kimg901]

After I read your response I struggled for a long time as to whether I would say anything, whether I would just say “thank you” or whether I would offer what I consider to be true (even though there is apologetic intent in what I say).

I truly read your question and your above response as offered with love for me and little or no apologetic intent. So, Thank You! Truth be told I cannot remember your faith journey, but I did appreciate that you were trying to offer me something of value because you wanted to give of yourself that which is valuable.

Now rather than offer a dissertation (which is my way), I will just say that “following an authority” IMO is what being a Christian involves. Following Christ as our Head. And following His servants through which He organizes His earthly kingdom. Where you and I differ is that I believe logic and reason lead me to be a LDS and not a Catholic. You and I also likely differ in that I believe the Spirit of God has called me to be a LDS and not a Catholic (and you may not be able to believe that is true – may believe it is false).

There is IMO a mistaken American (and European and Western and …) view of Christianity that involves a rejection of obedience to human authorities. If you and I are on the right side of this question, then that is not a problem we have.
Charity, TOm

Its funny how we all have our callings to a church. Mine was when I had my 2nd vision and Jesus told me to protect His Church. He did not say Catholic or any other church but pointed me to a Rock in a deserted field. It was a place of peace and love. And this was when I no longer believed in God/Jesus. No logic or reason for me, just His Words

 

[zaffiroborant]

Apparently, it was not common for teenage girls to marry at that time in the U.S.
Sorry you got banned, I was just getting ready to dispel the Joseph Smith myths.
I’ll post this anyway.

Since 1890, the U.S. Census has collected “Average Age at First Marriage” information for both men and women. By studying demographic information known to correlate with “Average Age at First Marriage” since 1890, social scientist’s can “look back” in time" and estimate “Average Age at First Marriage” historically. The graph below is a compilation of U.S. Census “Average Age at First Marriage” data since 1890 as well as social research that estimates “Average Age at First Marriage” prior to 1890.

In 1840, the “Average Age at First Marriage” for women is estimated to be between 21 and 22 years of age. In 1950, the “Average Age at First Marriage” dipped to about 20 years of age. By 2005, the “Average Age at First Marriage” had risen to about 25 years of age.

Sources:

U.S. Census Bureau, Table MS-2, “Estimated Age at First Marriage, by Sex: 1890 to the Present”

The average age of menarche in 1850 was 17 making sexually mature 14 year olds much less common then than they are now with the average age of menarche at 13 years.

 

[Stephen168]

I left the Catholic Church in ignorance of what it was to be a Catholic.

Where you and I differ is that I believe logic and reason lead me to be a LDS and not a Catholic.

There is no logic in Mormonism.

 

[truthseeker32]

Because this thread has gotten so far off course, may I request that a moderator close it?

 

[lax16]

Because this thread has gotten so far off course, may I request that a moderator close it?

This thread has had many twists and turns…but has it veered totally off course?

 

[kimg901]

This thread has had many twists and turns…but has it veered totally off course?

I don tthink it has. It all comes down to mormonism and what people say it is or isnt

 

[lax16]

After I read your response I struggled for a long time as to whether I would say anything, whether I would just say “thank you” or whether I would offer what I consider to be true (even though there is apologetic intent in what I say).

Fair enough.

I truly read your question and your above response as offered with love for me and little or no apologetic intent. So, Thank You! Truth be told I cannot remember your faith journey, but I did appreciate that you were trying to offer me something of value because you wanted to give of yourself that which is valuable.

I am glad you took it that way.

Now rather than offer a dissertation (which is my way), I will just say that “following an authority” IMO is what being a Christian involves. Following Christ as our Head. And following His servants through which He organizes His earthly kingdom. Where you and I differ is that I believe logic and reason lead me to be a LDS and not a Catholic. You and I also likely differ in that I believe the Spirit of God has called me to be a LDS and not a Catholic (and you may not be able to believe that is true – may believe it is false).

I am sure you believe that the Spirit has called you to be LDS.
What I don’t understand is the logic and reason that you say has lead you there.
How can it be logical to view God in a way contrary to how Jews, the Chosen People, do?
What reason could one use to think that Jesus would gather a people unto Himself to start a church, only to have it fail, in order to pave the way for Joseph Smith?

There is IMO a mistaken American (and European and Western and …) view of Christianity that involves a rejection of obedience to human authorities. If you and I are on the right side of this question, then that is not a problem we have.
Charity, TOm

I am in obedience to God, Jesus, the Holy Spirit, and the Church.
By not following the God of the Old Testament, the Jesus that we know about from scripture and 2,000 years of tradition, the Holy Spirit that Jesus promised would stay with His Church until He comes again, and the Church that Jesus established at Pentecost, how can one be obedient?
Jesus left His Church in the hands of human authorities under the care of the Holy Spirit - to be Catholic is certainly not a rejection of human authorities.

 

[LivingWaters7]

Because this thread has gotten so far off course, may I request that a moderator close it?

Yes, just click the “report” button for a post and request the thread be closed.

 

[Porknpie]

I found this in Wikipedia on Olster. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blake_Ostler

Ostler accepts the Book of Mormon as an actual historical account, but as edited and expanded in light of Joseph Smith’s vocabulary and capacity for expression within his world view. He argues that it is a modern expansion of an ancient document.[3] Because Ostler adopts the Expansion Theory, he affirms that the Book of Mormon was translated through the gift of God and reflects a revelation of the content of an ancient source though we have access only to its modern translation.[4]

There is profound evidence contradicting the BoM is an actual historical account … Well there is no evidence. As a lawyer he should know what evidence is and is not…and understand this.

But what is expansion theory mentioned above?

 

[Stephen168]

What I don’t understand is the logic and reason that you say has lead you there.

He will also have to explain away his first post on CAF that I referred to in post #210.

His first post on CAF is consistent with the Catholic to Mormon convert I know personally. Which I would summarize as “I was Mormon before I really thought about it.”

 

[Stephen168]

I found this in Wikipedia on Olster. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blake_Ostler

There is profound evidence contradicting the BoM is an actual historical account … Well there is no evidence. As a lawyer he should know what evidence is and is not…and understand this.

But what is expansion theory mentioned above?

I tried to read his article called, “The Book of Mormon as a Modern Expansion of an Ancient Source,” but having never been Mormon it seemed like rambling to me and I didn’t make it all the way through. It seems like he is trying to explain away scientific evidence for the Book of Mormon being a 19th century document.

Of course I think the hard part is to explain way the scientific evidence that the story is not what Joseph Smith claimed it to be.