The DCP of today

[_Ray A]

Don't mind Ray, KA. He seems to have come down with whatever Wade Englund was suffering from---I.e., he thinks that "mirroring," or lecturing, or whatever else is going to somehow "change" critics of Mormonism.

I don't expect to change the critics of Mormonism. No more than I expect a Labrador, or a poodle, to win race 5 at the Greyhounds on Saturday night.

[_cksalmon]

The larger issue here is that Juliann has no idea what she's even talking about. She misuses trinitarian terminology and then insists that her doing so doesn't really matter.

There are LDS critics of trinitarianism on MADB that understand the basic contours of the discussion. Juliann, per her ridiculous claims, frankly, isn't one of them.

It's really almost silly to discuss traditional Christian trinitarianism with someone who can't be bothered to make herself informed of even the basic elements of the debate.

It doesn't matter whether or not she finds traditional trinitarianism compelling. What matters, to my mind, is that she is apparently woefully uninformed about the foundational claims of trinitarianism. She has repeatedly insisted that the accepted English terminology involved is utterly unimportant to her. I believe her. She really doesn't care.

Meh.

Who on earth would take any of her critiques seriously when she apparently fails to comprehend even the foundational aspects of the debate?

I don't think even DCP can rescue the silly claims in her OP.

CKS

[_harmony]

The larger issue here is that Juliann has no idea what she's even talking about. She misuses trinitarian terminology and then insists that her doing so doesn't really matter.

There are LDS critics of trinitarianism on MADB that understand the basic contours of the discussion. Juliann, per her ridiculous claims, frankly, isn't one of them.

It's really almost silly to discuss traditional Christian trinitarianism with someone who can't be bothered to make herself informed of even the basic elements of the debate.

It doesn't matter whether or not she finds traditional trinitarianism compelling. What matters, to my mind, is that she is apparently woefully uninformed about the foundational claims of trinitarianism. She has repeatedly insisted that the accepted English terminology involved is utterly unimportant to her. I believe her. She really doesn't care.

Meh.

Who on earth would take any of her critiques seriously when she apparently fails to comprehend even the foundational aspects of the debate?

I don't think even DCP can rescue the silly claims in her OP.

CKS

Juliann has never let a standard definition get in the way of using one of her own making. The history of her ignoring standards and insisting on the accuracy of her own idiosyncrisies is legendary. Why should she change now,especially on MAD?

Ask her what a simple transcript is, and you'll know exactly what I mean.

[_the road to hana]

The larger issue here is that Juliann has no idea what she's even talking about. She misuses trinitarian terminology and then insists that her doing so doesn't really matter.

There are all sorts of problems with the OP on that thread on its face.

First, the article in the Deseret News doesn't provide a source for the statement about Franklin Evans, or quote it in context, so readers of the article don't know the whole story, nor does anyone reading the thread on MADB.

Second, because the article doesn't say how Franklin Evans used the analogy, readers don't know how many places he would set, or what assumptions he made or beliefs he advanced in using it. (But LDS readers are given to automatically assume that whatever he said, it must be wrong, and we're opposed to it, of course.) When Julie says it's "true and ironic," it's nonsensical. What's true and ironic? She's responding to something incomplete. If she knows the entire statement in context, and it's source, she should provide it for clarification of her readers on that thread.

Third, Julie asks what the "trinitarian critics" would respond. She might have done better to say "trinitarian friends."

Fourth, Julie is and can be a very smart woman. But she is far too much like the eager girl who shoots up her hand in class before actually thinking. When it's pointed out that she's incorrect in her assertions or assumptions, she quickly looks around the room to see who she can blame. And if she can start a classroom fight in the process, all the better.

[_beastie]

That's a very simple mistake that anyone can make. It doesn't mean they're illiterate. I mean, what else are you people going to find fault with? Isn't this evidence of some kind of partisan obsession? Shall we look for grammatical errors in exmos, now?

One name: bob crocket.

[_solomarineris]

cksalmon reponded to a post from Juliann which brought DCP's response:

The actual ignorance of trinitarian doctrine displayed here is quite notable.

DCP:

"Perhaps. "

"But on whose part?"

"The rise of the social Trinitarian model is a very encouraging development in Protestant and Catholic thought. Sometime before the end of this month, I intend to make some editorial adjustments to my Yale Divinity School paper of a few years ago, on Mormonism and the social Trinity, for publication in Element, the journal of the Society for Mormon Theology and Philosophy. You should be able to marvel at its brilliance and its insightfulness sometime during the first half of 2008."

I wonder what is the magnitude of that adjustment will be. I'd put my money on [b]"Among" rather than "Principal".

I think he has lost it.

[_karl61]

here is a freebe article on the trinity:

http://www.dialoguejournal.com/content/?p=61

[_the road to hana]

Someone really should ask Juliann if she were to invite the First Presidency to dinner, how many places would she set?

One, assuming only one would show up to represent them?

Two, assuming one would have a previous commitment?

Three, assuming they'd be tickled pink just to be invited?

or

None, assuming they can't be bothered.

[_Sethbag]

I'm going to go check out the post in question, but I have to add that I dislike it when anyone, on either side, points out grammatical and/or spelling errors in one's verbal opponent's writing. None of what we do here is going into anyone's doctoral dissertation, or book, or whatever. We write this stuff out and generally post it without even so much as proof-reading it ourselves, even once. Moreover, some of us type very quickly indeed and it's only natural that an "its/it's", "there/their", or "who's/whose" slips into the writing. I find these all the time in my own posts, and generally (but not always) go back and correct them later on if I catch them.

Another practice I thoroughly dislike in message board postings is quoting one's opponent, mistakes and all, and inserting [sic] in their post in order to point out the mistake. My own personal practice, and I don't give a flying damn if it's kosher by anyone's manual of style or not, is to actually correct obvious spelling mistakes in any material I quote from someone. It's polite, respectful, and most importantly, it keeps the discussion on point, without deviating into such irrelevancies as that someone made a spelling error. One's ability to rapidly type up and post 100% grammatical and spelling error-free message board posts should not be part of anyone's counter-argument.

[_the road to hana]

She's clearly flipped her cap over there, CKS.

Has she made it clear to anyone (including herself) what the question in the OP is really all about? Does she know the context? Apparently not.