Mopologetic "Bridge Building"

[_Daniel Peterson]

Ah, the logos of the mop. A topic of endless fascination.

[_harmony]

I really wasn't joking, Daniel. I really don't want to engage in dialogue via email. What about the Celestial Forum?

That's a possibility. I'll consider it.

It's always open, no charge, and heavily moderated.

Though I must say that this board, as a whole, is not a place where I'm interested in discussing things that I regard as sacred.

If you aren't interested in discussing things you regard as sacred, which I assume includes the nature of God, LDS doctrine, and assorted other topics related to bridges between LDS and others, then I'm at a loss to understand why you mentioned your presentation or your paper here. Or were you just offering crumbs to the peasants?

[_Daniel Peterson]

If you aren't interested in discussing things you regard as sacred, which I assume includes the nature of God, LDS doctrine, and assorted other topics related to bridges between LDS and others, then I'm at a loss to understand why you mentioned your presentation or your paper here. Or were you just offering crumbs to the peasants?

I'm terribly sorry that you regard the act of recommending a book or article for somebody's possible interest as a personal insult, although I think I can see how you, in particular, might.

[_Roger]

DCP wrote:

Completely open message boards are problematic places, on several levels.

I agree. And they are also an intriguing phenomenon. A platform on which you have obviously become very adept... and obviously made some people mad along the way.

There is something to be said for a skilled debator. But debate and truth are separate things. Anyone with the right wit and talent can win debates regardless of where the truth actually rests.

[_Jersey Girl]

So Daniel,

Will you tell me what you think the central disagreement is that mainstream Christians have with the LDS view of the nature of God?

[_Daniel Peterson]

There is something to be said for a skilled debator. But debate and truth are separate things. Anyone with the right wit and talent can win debates regardless of where the truth actually rests.

I could not possibly agree more strongly, and, in fact, have said exactly the same thing on this board several times -- including within the past few days.

So Daniel,

Will you tell me what you think the central disagreement is that mainstream Christians have with the LDS view of the nature of God?

I think the central disagreement that mainstream Christians have with the LDS view of the nature of God arises out of the Latter-day Saint notion that divinity and humanity are points on a continuum rather than, as Karl Barth famously put it, ganz anders.



.

[_harmony]

If you aren't interested in discussing things you regard as sacred, which I assume includes the nature of God, LDS doctrine, and assorted other topics related to bridges between LDS and others, then I'm at a loss to understand why you mentioned your presentation or your paper here. Or were you just offering crumbs to the peasants?

I'm terribly sorry that you regard the act of recommending a book or article for somebody's possible interest as a personal insult, although I think I can see how you, in particular, might.

So you only recommend; you don't discuss the subject your recommendation covers. And you don't like it when someone recommends articles etc to you; you regard it as... what was it you called it... home work?

[_Daniel Peterson]

So you only recommend; you don't discuss the subject your recommendation covers.

If nobody else has read the article or book in question, what's to discuss?

And you don't like it when someone recommends articles etc to you; you regard it as... what was it you called it... home work?

That's not exactly the most accurate of summaries, you know.

[_Markk]

On MAD, you titled your thread, "An Attempt at Bridge Building," and then you proceeded to call Markk "Markkk" and whatnot, and to generally treat him with a great deal of nastiness. So, you yourself provided an example of "using a saw." The proof is in the pudding, Prof. P.

Deftly done!

One who hadn't actually seen the thread would imagine that I had entitled it "An Attempt at Bridge Building" and then immediately, out of the blue, launched into an unprovoked, sustained, nonsubstantive attack on Markk.

In fact, of course, "An Attempt at Bridge Building" is the thread's subtitle. The title is a reference to my article in Element: "Mormonism and the Trinity." Markk entered the thread, summarily dismissing the article without having ever laid eyes on it, without even attempting to see it, and engaging repeatedly in the most basic and transparently obvious of logical fallacies. I don't see that sort of response as intellectually serious, I don't see such a person as a serious dialogue partner, and I'm willing to say so.

your method of "bridge building" really sucks.

When you have any actual knowledge of my efforts at interfaith dialogue, you'll be in a position to attempt a substantial critique. (I have no doubt that, if you actually possessed any such knowledge, your first and irresistible instinct would be to criticize.)

Do you have anything to offer on my article "Mormonism and the Trinity"? Any suggestions for the Foundation for Interreligious Diplomacy? Any contributions to interfaith discussion? Have you made any effort in this area? Do you have any experience with it from which we might learn?

Hi Dan,

First let me say I based what I said on your conclusion, which was clear, second i will read it when it won't cost me the ten bucks or whatever it was.

If people are going to attempt to a "bridge building" then both parties need to "admit" to their role in any reasons for a need to build a bridge. Until you realize that the vision and the LDS foundation is built on {most} everything Mainstream Christianity believes is lost, broken, and perverted, then the plans for any bridge building won't even get out of plan check. If you discussed this in your paper then it is a start, if not, then it isn't worth the paper it is written on. The subject of the Trinity is and always will be 180 between our two beliefs, based on your conclusion your paper is not very realistic, and just another surface argument that is deceiving to LDS core thought.

Take Care Dan

Mark
John 1:12

{} Edit

[_Daniel Peterson]

I'll go on engaging in interfaith dialogues of various kinds, while you proceed to declare such dialogue impossible for me based upon your understanding of things that you haven't read.

That's a division of labor that I can live with.