Mormonism and the Trinity

[_KimberlyAnn]

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?

It's another plot of his to get rich off Mopologetics!

I bet he got six out of my seven bucks, that greedy $^#$%&#$^&.

KA

[_Bond James Bond]

I bet he got six out of my seven bucks, that greedy $^#$%&#$^&.

KA

by the way you owe me a dollar.

[_Daniel Peterson]

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?

It's no different than suggesting a book to somebody.

"Difficult to access"? Anybody can buy it, or join SMPT.

What a fiendish plot!

[_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?

It's no different than suggesting a book to somebody.

"Difficult to access"? Anybody can buy it, or join SMPT.

What a fiendish plot!

Come on now. You've been participating on the MBs long enough to know what I'm talking about.

[_Nightingale]

The concluding paragraph of the article reads as follows:

Latter-day Saints and other Christians will continue to disagree on many things. But, if I'm correct, the doctrine of the Trinity need not loom quite so large among them.

.

It sounds riveting. I've always been interested in this topic. The different takes on this doctrine are one of the main reasons my EV friends consider that Mormonism is "not Christian", as I'm sure you all know. I would be very surprised if the final paragraph of this article were to come true. But I'm all for people finding common ground or at least ceasing to talk past each other, as is too often the case. I often see that we agree on more than we think we do but we don't necessarily hear each other as the debate gets too loud.

I knew this would happen, as it often does, and it embarrasses me but here goes. I don't mind at all shelling out the $7 USD but can't see anywhere on the linked site that invites me to do so. I see where I can get back issues but none of them are the one that DCP is referring to. Am I more than usually clueless on this type of transaction, is it blocked to Cdn buyers, does the article in question not actually exist or is some other vast conspiracy at work here. I'd go for number one as my first guess. Could someone enlighten me? Which button do I click to pay up? If the article is downloadable I could be reading it as we speak.

Thanks for any assistance or clarification.

[_Daniel Peterson]

I would be very surprised if the final paragraph of this article were to come true.

The final paragraph wasn't a prediction. It was a conclusion -- a conclusion that, I believe, is justified by my argument.

I do not expect or predict that evangelicals are going to be suddenly welcoming Mormons into their club with open arms.

I knew this would happen, as it often does, and it embarrasses me but here goes. I don't mind at all shelling out the $7 USD but can't see anywhere on the linked site that invites me to do so. I see where I can get back issues but none of them are the one that DCP is referring to. Am I more than usually clueless on this type of transaction, is it blocked to Cdn buyers, does the article in question not actually exist or is some other vast conspiracy at work here. I'd go for number one as my first guess. Could someone enlighten me? Which button do I click to pay up? If the article is downloadable I could be reading it as we speak.

Thanks for any assistance or clarification.

The new issue of Element in which my article appears came from the press on Tuesday, and our annual conference began in Claremont on Thursday morning. We have no staff, and I would imagine that it may well take a few days to get anything up on the website. You can simply contact the secretary of the organization, Ben Huff, and order a copy from him:

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

[_Nightingale]

The final paragraph wasn't a prediction. It was a conclusion -- a conclusion that, I believe, is justified by my argument.

I do not expect or predict that evangelicals are going to be suddenly welcoming Mormons into their club with open arms.

Prediction, conclusion, either way I'd be surprised to see it. I agree it won't be sudden. But sure they'd welcome Mormons, if only it weren't for that great divide over the Trinity thing.

The new issue of Element in which my article appears came from the press on Tuesday, and our annual conference began in Claremont on Thursday morning. We have no staff, and I would imagine that it may well take a few days to get anything up on the website. You can simply contact the secretary of the organization, Ben Huff, and order a copy from him...

Oh, sorry. I missed that detail about the newness of it all. I'm not too familiar with all the LDS-related groups and conferences and organizations in Utah or all the LDS-related publications and what all is going on. But thanks for the contact information. I'll be interested to see the article. I thought I'd try something radical and actually read the thing before discussing it.

I used to be intense about the Trinity doctrine as it is so crucial to the belief structure of Christian and allied groups. I found that not being born into a particular denomination or group made it difficult for me to just automatically understand and accept even some of the standard beliefs without analysis. This tends to make one's approach more cerebral than strictly "spiritual", at least in some areas. I've always had a problem conceptualizing a trinity. The JW and LDS teaching of separate beings always made more sense to me. I might have been taking it too literally as well as attempting to actually visualize it, which makes a triune god, for me, harder to understand and accept. All the scholars, all through the ages, attempting to define God and not reaching consensus about even the basics makes it tough for the lay person out there.

When I finally realized that a doctrine is just a way humans have of trying to describe their understanding of the divine, not a sacred thing in its own right, and that every description could miss the mark - how will we know absolutely in this life - then I could relax a bit on the doctrinal front. If we could accept more readily that people have different ideas and descriptions but all Christians and allied groups are essentially interested in the same things maybe then there could be more movement towards ecumenism. Until then, separate clubhouses it is.

[_harmony]

When I finally realized that a doctrine is just a way humans have of trying to describe their understanding of the divine, not a sacred thing in its own right, and that every description could miss the mark - how will we know absolutely in this life - then I could relax a bit on the doctrinal front.

This is a fine piece of advice to everyone. However, the Brethren will not accept this idea, simply because it makes them null and void. The possibility that they and the other prophets, now all dead, could "miss the mark" is simply inconceivable to them. Not that they haven't admitted to error before (I can think of once where they publically admitted to getting something really important... wrong), but a general admission that their still small voice may be misleading millions of people is NOT going to ever happen. In order to be one of the Brethren, one must have, at least outwardly, a complete confidence in one's own rightness. The humility to admit that one could be wrong is what keeps otherwise eligible men out of that particular circle. Otherwise, they'd be as human as the rest of us, and we know how often we're wrong!

[_Jason Bourne]

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?

Oh no doubt he is up to something else instead. Probably he gets royalties of $20 per download on and article that cost $7. And if you buy it he will have access to all your financial data which will then be raided by the SMC to further their nefarious deeds.


Oh and he probably wanted to give you something else to satisfy your neurosis.

Scratch you really are a one note wonder.

[_Daniel Peterson]

I'm sure I speak for others in noting what a remarkable privilege it is to have with us here a person, harmony, who sees so clearly into the souls of the Brethren and who judges them with such unerring insight and accuracy.

Prediction, conclusion, either way I'd be surprised to see it.

Predictions and conclusions are quite different things. I hate to quibble with someone who typically, in my experience, writes with the charity that you do, but, well, I'm going to, anyway. You continue, functionally, to misread my quoted final paragraph as if it were some sort of prophecy about the future that is unlikely to come true:

I agree it won't be sudden.

But it's not a prophecy or a prediction at all. It's my observation that Mormon doctrine about the Godhead and Protestant/Catholic/Orthodox doctrine about the Trinity -- most especially in the increasingly popular social model of Trinitarianism -- are not as far apart as Mormons and mainstream Christians have generally believed their positions to be.

That's a conclusion about the analysis of concepts, not a prediction about public opinion at any time in the future, whether suddenly or gradually realized.

But sure they'd welcome Mormons, if only it weren't for that great divide over the Trinity thing.

Again, my paper says absolutely nothing about evangelical or mainstream popular opinion. It features no polls, offers no opinion data. It argues, simply, that Concept A is surprisingly closer to Concept B than has been previously recognized by writers on the subject.

I thought I'd try something radical and actually read the thing before discussing it.

Careful. That could make you an outcast in some quarters.

This tends to make one's approach more cerebral than strictly "spiritual", at least in some areas.

That is a subtheme of my paper.

I've always had a problem conceptualizing a trinity.

My paper cites two articles (by believing Christian philosophers, so far as I can tell) that argue that orthodox mainstream Trinitarianism is, quite literally, logically incoherent.

There is, thus, a very good reason for your problem in conceptualizing that kind of a Trinity.

The JW and LDS teaching of separate beings always made more sense to me.

As well it should.