Mormonism and the Trinity

[_harmony]

That is hardly fair. His comment back to KA was reasonable and he invited her to read the article and comment.

*sigh*

Of course it wasn't fair. It wasn't meant to be fair. It was meant to point out the total unfairness of Daniel's repeated comments about this board... ie, that there are no serious, relevant, or reasonable discussion that happen here.

The Trinity doctrine is not one specific doctrine and historically has been all over the map. The exploration of a social trinity is one more phase of its on going evolution.

You might want to take that up with cksalmon. He's making a much better argument than I ever could, and he doesn't agree with you.

I would expect him to as well since your tone in unnecessarily hostile in my opinion.

Not so, Jason. The hostility was in the paragraph to KA, not the paragraph to which I was referring and on which you are now commenting.

water... steam... ice... lemonade.

[_Jason Bourne]

You might want to take that up with cksalmon. He's making a much better argument than I ever could, and he doesn't agree with you.



Not so, Jason. The hostility was in the paragraph to KA, not the paragraph to which I was referring and on which you are now commenting.

water... steam... ice... lemonade.

I am not an expert on the trinity and all its intricacies. But I have read enough about it to know it is not a cut and dry doctrine. And I know that the creeds the formed what is believed to be the trinity doctrine today took hundreds and hundreds of years to develop. Heck we have follower of Arius's doctrine right here in this board. Just ask CC his view of the Nicene dogma that branded Arius a heretic even when a majority of the church leader believed his view. And I recall one David Waltz, who posts and MAD discussing all sorts of differing nuances and views even today about the trinity.

And yes Harmony you are being hostile to Dan here. Read his article if you are interested. Discuss some of the things that are being discussed here.

Also, it would be nice of Gad and Scratch could shut up about the conspiracies of LDS apologetics. The thread is not even about that. But of course Scratch and Gad, the two boxy twins want to twist and turn everything into their stage. They are simply one note wonders. Comment on the topic or or shut the heck up.

[_Daniel Peterson]

the total unfairness of Daniel's repeated comments about this board... ie, that there are no serious, relevant, or reasonable discussion that happen here.

Where have I said that?

Please supply some actual quotations.

water... steam... ice... lemonade.

I've already conceded total defeat at your hands. I can't think of any clearer way of putting it: You've completely refuted me and my sorry excuse for an article.

Please. Show some mercy.


.

[_cksalmon]

I can't imagine other than an already road-wearied, post-Enlightenment ecumenism even countenancing for a moment the idea that the doctrine of the Trinity need not loom very large in the interactions between orthodox Trinitarians and Latter-day Saint tritheists.

I'm not particularly interested in "orthodox" Trinitarians

Which is fine, of course, Dr. P. But, manifestly, I am so interested. That you are not deters me not in the least.

and your reference to Latter-day Saints as "tritheists" begs a very important question.

Which is what, precisely? That Latter-day Saints actually hold that the Mormon trinity consists of three deified gods? Two physically embodied, one not? What is the important question I have begged?

In the writings of even the mst ardent Social Trinitarians, I have yet to read an account of the Trinity that meaningfully squares with the constructed LDS adoption of the Social Trinity model. It's still, to my mind, a Mormon apologetic fiction at this point.)

Plainly, we disagree.

I don't know why we would, frankly. I mean, I have seen no reason to believe that we are fundamentally opposed at this point. It's not plain at all to me.

You're still welcome to read my article, though. It's not entirely impossible that your thinking might change somewhat.

[/quote]
I'd love to do so. I would have added Element to my journal subscriptions some time ago if I had any faith that the print version would ship on a regular basis.

cks

[_CaliforniaKid]

To add to what CKS said about believer's baptism, the first case I know of where believer's baptism was practiced to the exclusion of infant baptism was January 21, 1525 when George Blaurock was rebaptized by Conrad Grebel.

[_Daniel Peterson]

I'm not particularly interested in "orthodox" Trinitarians

Which is fine, of course, Dr. P. But, manifestly, I am so interested. That you are not deters me not in the least.

That's fine. I'm utterly at ease with the idea that people have different interests than I do.

But the fact remains that my article doesn't attempt, your comments on it notwithstanding, to reconcile "orthodox" Trinitarianism with Mormonism.

and your reference to Latter-day Saints as "tritheists" begs a very important question.

Which is what, precisely? That Latter-day Saints actually hold that the Mormon trinity consists of three deified gods? Two physically embodied, one not? What is the important question I have begged?

My article disputes the adequacy of the term tritheism as a description of Mormon doctrine. That you implicitly characterize my article as an attempt to reconcile Mormon tritheism with "orthodox" Trinitarianism is, thus, not only false on one hand but question-begging on the other.

I mean, I have seen no reason to believe that we are fundamentally opposed at this point. It's not plain at all to me.

I hope my article will help to make it plain to you.

[_cksalmon]

I hope my article will help to make it plain to you.

When? Again, I don't mind, and, in fact, enjoy, subscribing to journals relevant to my interests. Can you send me a copy of the article (click my avatar button and send as an attachment)? No?

Element hasn't published consistently for two years. I only have so much cash. Am I wrong about this?

I don't want to have buyer's remorse.

cks

[_harmony]

My article disputes the adequacy of the term tritheism as a description of Mormon doctrine.

What do you dispute? How do you define "tritheism"?

[_Daniel Peterson]

Can you send me a copy of the article (click my avatar button and send as an attachment)? No?

I don't believe that I should do that.

Element hasn't published consistently for two years. I only have so much cash. Am I wrong about this?

I believe we're now caught up. If not, we're getting there. Nobody will be defrauded.

My article disputes the adequacy of the term tritheism as a description of Mormon doctrine.

What do you dispute?

My article disputes the adequacy of the term tritheism as a description of Mormon doctrine.

How do you define "tritheism"?

Loosely, as belief in three completely distinct gods.

I deny that Mormonism holds such a belief.

You're welcome to read my article. Or not.

My guess is that you won't.

[_moksha]

... its inescapable dependence upon ancient philosophical concepts that have nothing to do with Christianity and that are no longer widely held, and the damage that it has done both socially and theologically.

Ah, ancient amd pehaps outmoded philosophical concepts! However, didn't the LDS concept arise as a theological adjunct for allowing men to become Gods, which itself was driven by polygamy theology? Since the need for polygamy is no longer widely held, is there any consideration to the damage it has done both socially and theologically?

Just curious....