Mormonism and the Trinity

[_Dr. Shades]

As yet, I doubt that there's a link -- which, by harmony's logic, pretty much demonstrates that the article doesn't actually exist.

I'm afraid you've got it wrong. In your case, you doubted that a link exists, thus displaying intellectual integrity. Now, if you had said that the link definitely exists, even though it doesn't, then you'd be on Juliann-ish ground and rightfully place your comment in harmony's sights (and mine, too, for tradition's sake).

(And honestly, I don't understand the desire to be included. Why not highlight the differences--the intrinsic peculiarity of Mormonism? That's what makes it distinct and would make it even more desirable to many individuals.)

Kimberly Ann makes a great point. The time when mainstreaming began in earnest is also the time when per-missionary baptisms dropped off dramatically. Of course, most of us blame that last part on the Internet, but could there also be an element of, "Hmm, Mormonism is pretty much the same as my current denomination, so I don't see any need to switch". . . ?

[_Daniel Peterson]

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....

Even if that were true, it would be apples and oranges. Nicene Trinitarianism relied and relies, for its precise classical formulation, on concepts derived from Aristotelianism and Middle Platonism.

The Mormon doctrine of exaltation needs no terminology from plural marriage for its full conceptualization.

Kimberly Ann makes a great point.

I tend to agree. (I've said the same thing myself, many times.) But it has nothing to do with my article.

[_harmony]

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.

I'll wait for the online version. I'm battling dry rot right now and it's taking every dime.

What exactly do you think Mormons believe in, if not a completely distinct Heavenly Father, a completely distinct Jesus Christ, and a completely distinct Holy Ghost? How do you reconcile the idea that Mormons don't believe in three completely distinct gods, when Joseph reported seeing 2 personages, floating above him in the air. What is not distinct about what he reported seeing?

[_Daniel Peterson]

Hint: I deny their complete distinction.

You can read the article in a year.

In the meantime, just content yourself with calling me names and condemning me. It's what you like to do, anyway, and it requires no serious reading.

[_huckelberry]

Mr Peterson, to what are you refering for an official explaination of exaltation and its relationship to to God head in Mormon teaching. Reading message boards one sees a variety of views.

To what are you referring for concepts clarifying the trinity? " True God from true God, Begotton not made" in the Nicean statement? Doesnot sound terribly technical or Aristotilian. Perhaps you refer to theology made later.

[_cksalmon]

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.

Which, is, of course, fine by me.

But, goodness, personally, I tend to send copiously more than ever was requested when someone asks me for a source, if at all even possible on my end.

Free exchange and all that. Of course, I'm not suggesting you overstep any ethical bounds. I just can't envision myself subscribing to a journal whose last published volume was in Ought (Aught) Six.

I read what I can online, of course.

(And, any thoroughly Wittgensteinian analysis of OFAW should have pumped some nascent and purer theological O2 into your sails. I confess, I don't know why this hasn't happened yet.)

cks

[_harmony]

Hint: I deny their complete distinction.

We used to have huge discussions about the Trinity vs the Three in the hallway at school. Baptists on one side of the hallway, Mormons on the other. Baptists with their Trinity as three in one personage, Mormons with their Three as three personages with one purpose. I guess those guys were wrong. Wouldn't be the first time.

You can read the article in a year.

Thanks, although someone better remind me.

In the meantime, just content yourself with calling me names and condemning me. It's what you like to do, anyway, and it requires no serious reading.

We all do what we do best, Daniel. Yours is the putdown, sometimes subtle, sometimes not; mine is the reporting what I see, sometimes cranky, sometimes not.

[_harmony]

(And, any thoroughly Wittgensteinian analysis of OFAW should have pumped some nascent and purer theological O2 into your sails. I confess, I don't know why this hasn't happened yet.)

cks

Care to expound, CK?

[_Daniel Peterson]

Which, is, of course, fine by me.

But, goodness, personally, I tend to send copiously more than ever was requested when someone asks me for a source, if at all even possible on my end.

Free exchange and all that. Of course, I'm not suggesting you overstep any ethical bounds.

Which is precisely my concern.

I think I owe the journal and the Society a decent interval before I start undercutting their potential sales. And if I send a copy to you, on what grounds can I decline to send copies to others? The market for Element is already tiny enough.

Otherwise, I'm happy to share things, and I do so a very great deal.

I just can't envision myself subscribing to a journal whose last published volume was in Ought (Aught) Six.

I read what I can online, of course.

Plenty of academic journals -- indeed, perhaps most -- are quite a bit behind their ideal publication schedule. Element is edited and produced by Dr. Brian Birch, at Utah Valley University, with some occasional transient help, and he's a very busy fellow who does this voluntarily, as a service. I'm sure he's pedaling as fast as he can:

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

As I say, though, I believe that we're now pretty much caught up.

(And, any thoroughly Wittgensteinian analysis of OFAW should have pumped some nascent and purer theological O2 into your sails. I confess, I don't know why this hasn't happened yet.)

???

I confess that you've lost me.

[_Doctor Scratch]

I have to say that I sympathize wholeheartedly with CKSalmon on this issue. Why would Dr. Peterson invite us to read an article of his which is manifestly difficult to access? Does he genuinely want us to read it? Or is he up to something else instead?