Mormonism and the Trinity

[_Roger Morrison]

Thanks Dan, i just deleted what was originally in this post. I hadn't read your "Rib response."

It is interesting that BY did not accept that story, nor you, as I expect a good number of ranking-Mormons also do not. Yet it remains embedded as a reality in what is professed as inspired and enlightening doctrine??? in my opinion a discredit to the institution...
Roger
*
*

[_harmony]

Does DCP ever admit Brigham Young was a ruthless tyrant when he ruled Utah?

No.

I absolutely do not.

I wonder... what is it about Brigham that some people want to brand him as a ruthless tyrant? That seems very over the top. Ruthless tyrant? I don't think so.

[_solomarineris]

"solomarineris"]Yea, DCP never denied that it occured, does he also admit that;
Mormons killed defenseless man, women, children?

Yes. To our shame.

Local Mormons, TR holding Mormons?

Local Mormons? Yes.[/quote]

That's refreshing to know, as I recall on that MADb discussion I couldn't get you admit this plainly.
What you & your predecessors failed to understand is, this was an isolated incident, never occurred again.
Instead of exposing all guilty parties the Church tried to cover up and protect very people who perpetrated
this crime.
GBH had excellent chance in 1999 to apologize for this crime, he didn't, he was aloof. No Church official ever
apologized for the misdeed.
DCP, I kept my study books, lesson manuals since 1977, do you think there's any mention of MMM there and yet
I can find Haun's Mill Massacre in every history manual.
Now you (Church) are embarking on a new quest of openness & reconciliation. You guys have to find a way to discuss
sensitive parts of LDS history, without getting defensive and trying to evade issues.
Stop seeing critical voices as wholesale enemies. I love Utah, I tolerate Church, Church should tolerate me as I am.
Over 50% are Mormons. Most of people have no interest in demise of Church.

[_Daniel Peterson]

And no, I don't do theology or theological exposition on this or any other message board.

Given that there is not a studied theologian in the First Presidency or Quorum of the LDS church, we can all understand and breathe a sigh of relief that we won't be put through the eqivalent of Book of Mormon historicity by those who have no peer respect there either!!!

Thanks for sparing us Mr. Peterson!

I realize that you're too busy sneering and doing your perpetual victory jig, but Daniel C. Peterson, "Mormonism and the Trinity," Element 3/1-2 (Spring/Fall 2007): 1-43 -- the paper announced in the opening post of this weird thread -- is, in fact, an exercise in philosophical theology, and I'm more than willing to submit it to the judgment of any theologian anywhere.

In fact, I have done so, to an extent: I first delivered a portion of it at Yale Divinity School ("only in Provo!" as you'll no doubt observe), and I published it partially at the encouragement of Stephen Davis, the Russell K. Pitzer Professor of Philosophy at Claremont McKenna College in California ("only in Provo!"), who was the respondent to the paper at Yale.

Sorry, but you come across as a belligerent buffoon.

[_KimberlyAnn]

I realize that you're too busy sneering and doing your perpetual victory jig, but Daniel C. Peterson, "Mormonism and the Trinity," Element 3/1-2 (Spring/Fall 2007): 1-43 -- the paper announced in the opening post of this weird thread -- is, in fact, an exercise in philosophical theology, and I'm more than willing to submit it to the judgment of any theologian anywhere.

It would be nice if I were able to acquire the article you cite, but so far, no luck.

I sent the first email inquiry May 25th, almost a month ago, but there is no word on when I might be able to purchase the article. I was told to check back on the status of the printing, which I did many days ago. I've yet to receive a response.

It's nice that you're willing to submit your article to the judgment of any theologian anywhere. Good on you. The rest of us will just keep jumping through hoops to get it, I suppose.

KA

[_Daniel Peterson]

Others have received it.

[_JAK]

Just how long is this article? Why don’t you just post it here?

If “others have reached it,” and if you know exactly what or where it can be accessed, why all the secrecy?

KA wants to see it. Some others have expressed interest.

Your lack of cooperation on this is suspicious.

JAK

[_KimberlyAnn]

Others have received it.

That's good. I'm glad for them.

I should have typed, "I will keep jumping through hoops to get it." Except I won't. I'm done. I've quite better things to read, I'm sure.

KA

[_Daniel Peterson]

Just how long is this article?

Forty-three printed pages.

Why don’t you just post it here?

Among other reasons, because that would be a betrayal of the journal and of the organization that just published it.

If “others have reached [sic] it,” and if you know exactly what or where it can be accessed, why all the secrecy?

What "secrecy"?

I've given the bibliographical data for the article, given the address to the website for the publisher, and supplied the e-mail addresses of two people (the journal's editor and the secretary-treasurer of the organization) from whom the article might be obtained.

To reprise what I've posted several times already:

Daniel C. Peterson, "Mormonism and the Trinity," Element 3/1-2 (Spring/Fall 2007): 1-43

http://www.smpt.org/

http://uvu.edu/profpages/profiles/show/user_id/450

http://www.rmc.edu/Academics/ethics/faculty.aspx

You call that "secrecy"?

KA wants to see it. Some others have expressed interest.

And others -- including others here, on this message board -- have received it.

Your lack of cooperation on this is suspicious.

Sigh. Your "suspicion" is groundless and absurd.

I find your lack of faith . . . disturbing.

I've quite better things to read, I'm sure.

Oh, I think that's very, very unlikely. Indeed, virtually inconceivable.

[_JAK]

D P stated:
Others have received it.

That singular response to KA appeared less than forthcoming.

Clearly, “Forty-three printed pages” would be too long to place in this bb. Perhaps you mentioned that number previously. I did not see it.

If the article has been “published,” that would be an additional reason not to post it. With the number of posts you have made to this board and with knowledge of how problematic it is to read in sequence (due to the board’s format), you should understand why -

KA stated the following:
I sent the first email inquiry May 25th, almost a month ago, but there is no word on when I might be able to purchase the article. I was told to check back on the status of the printing, which I did many days ago. I've yet to receive a response.

You made the following pejorative comment:

D P stated:
I realize that you're too busy sneering and doing your perpetual victory jig, …

That appeared uncooperative and suspicious.

Your flip singular comment to KA:
D P stated:
Others have received it.

That comment prompted:

KA to stated the following:
I should have typed, "I will keep jumping through hoops to get it." Except I won't. I'm done. I've quite better things to read, I'm sure.

To that:

D P stated:
Oh, I think that's very, very unlikely. Indeed, virtually inconceivable.

That is again a pejorative comment to KA who began here in a civil way reviewing the length of time KA had waited “to receive a response.”

D P stated to JAK:
Your "suspicion" is groundless and absurd.
I find your lack of faith . . . disturbing.

“Faith” is irrelevant and suspicion is justified in the light of your responses in this thread.

The three web links which you posted appear unhelpful in reaching the specific writing about which KA was inquiring. That is further reason to be suspicious and skeptical.

JAK