Mormonism and the Trinity

[_Daniel Peterson]

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.

I think it's deducible from

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

which I've mentioned several times.

If the article has been “published,” that would be an additional reason not to post it.

The opening sentence of the opening post of this thread was "I realize that the interest here will be, at most, minimal, but some might perhaps care -- if only to mine it for "evidence" of my supposed nastiness, vengefulness, dishonesty, resentment, and rage -- to know about an article that, despite the date given on the periodical, I've just published in the journal of the Society for Mormon Philosophy and Theology" (emphasis mine).

Attentive readers might conclude from that sentence that the article has, in fact, been "published."

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.

That comment was not addressed to KA. Not even slightly. It was addressed, quite clearly and expressly, to Joey. The post is easily accessible, just above on this thread. I posted it at 11:10 AM, on Tuesday, 23 June 2009. There is no ambiguity as to the person I was addressing.

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.”

It was an author's amused response to somebody's claim that she has "quite better things to read, I'm sure," than what the author has written.

Are you really completely devoid of a sense of humor?

If so, I apologize to you.

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

“Faith” is irrelevant

I take it that you missed the fact that I was quoting Darth Vader?

It was a joke.

Again, I apologize. I didn't realize that you were so utterly humorless and so determined to consider me a villain.

You're apparently one of those I mentioned in the opening post, who would probably want to "mine [the article] for 'evidence' of my supposed nastiness, vengefulness, dishonesty, resentment, and rage."

and suspicion is justified in the light of your responses in this thread.

Oh yes. I've been devious and secretive.

If I really didn't want people to have a look at the article, why on earth did I even start a thread to announce its publication?

I can't force Professors Birch and Huff to send freebie copies to you folks. I'm not responsible for the printing foul-up that has complicated matters. I wrote an article. It was published. I got a copy. I mentioned it on a message board. Sinister indeed!

The three web links which you posted appear unhelpful in reaching the specific writing about which KA was inquiring.

All I can say is that other people, including vocal, non-LDS posters on this very board, own copies of the article, having received them through the avenues I mentioned.

If you find that devious and sinister, that's your problem.

That is further reason to be suspicious and skeptical.

You seem determined to be suspicious and skeptical. I hope you enjoy your choice, baffling as it seems to me.

[_KimberlyAnn]

I can't force Professors Birch and Huff to send freebie copies to you folks. I'm not responsible for the printing foul-up that has complicated matters. I wrote an article. It was published. I got a copy. I mentioned it on a message board. Sinister indeed!

Just to be clear, I didn't request a "freebie." I think that's a rather presumptuous thing to do. I expected to pay for the article.

KA

[_Daniel Peterson]

Just to be clear, I didn't request a "freebie." I think that's a rather presumptuous thing to do. I expected to pay for the article.

Whatever. I don't know why you haven't been sent a copy while others have.

For JAK: Drs. Birch and Huff don't work for me. We're not even at the same school. They're not my minions. I suspect that they have lives. I don't control them. I know that they've sent copies out. Why they haven't sent a copy to KA, I have no idea. When you figure it out, please let me know: I'm sure it reflects badly on me, somehow.

[_Joey]

Sorry, but you come across as a belligerent buffoon.

Would this be an ad-hom attack or will we find out you also provide expert assistance to Jack Hanna and were merely making a scientific observation?

[_Daniel Peterson]

It was a clinical, scientific observation.

Incidentally, I'm speaking on the Book of Mormon at a meeting of libertarians in Las Vegas early next month. You're welcome to attend. Like everything else I do, it's in Provo, of course, and before an entirely Mormon audience:

Hear a Rabbi, a Christian, a Muslim, a Sikh and a Mormon defend their sacred scriptures, and debate the role of religion in a no-holds-barred roundtable with Michael Shermer, editor of Skeptic magazine and Scientific American.

http://www.freedomfest.com/home.htm

[_JohnStuartMill]

What kind of libertarian are you, DCP? I dig Hayek.

[_Daniel Peterson]

What kind of libertarian are you, DCP? I dig Hayek.

So do I. Even had the privilege of meeting him in St. Andrews, Scotland, many years ago.

I'm an economic libertarian, though not quite entirely pure.

Not a devotee of Ayn Rand, though. Read a lot of her in high school and was heavily influenced by her, but didn't actually convert.

[_JohnStuartMill]

What kind of libertarian are you, DCP? I dig Hayek.

So do I. Even had the privilege of meeting him in St. Andrews, Scotland, many years ago.

That's very cool! I'm envious, as you might expect.

I'm an economic libertarian, though not quite entirely pure.

Neither was Hayek, so the affinity is appropriate.

I just got finished reading Radicals for Capitalism, which is a pretty thorough history of the American libertarian movement. Definitely worth the read, if you get the time.

Not a devotee of Ayn Rand, though. Read a lot of her in high school and was heavily influenced by her, but didn't actually convert.

I was a Randian in high school for about a week, which is how long it took for me to realize that she was out of her gourd. I attended meetings of the Objectivist club at UCLA for about a year, but as an evangelist for sanity, and not as a Randroid. It was still pretty interesting, though: the other political groups on campus couldn't give a hoot about philosophy, unfortunately.

[_Dwight Frye]

Incidentally, I'm speaking on the Book of Mormon at a meeting of libertarians in Las Vegas early next month. You're welcome to attend. Like everything else I do, it's in Provo, of course, and before an entirely Mormon audience:

Hear a Rabbi, a Christian, a Muslim, a Sikh and a Mormon defend their sacred scriptures, and debate the role of religion in a no-holds-barred roundtable with Michael Shermer, editor of Skeptic magazine and Scientific American.

http://www.freedomfest.com/home.htm

Neat!

Will you all be defending your respective scriptures from just Shermer, or from one another as well?

(Also, I see that whoever wrote this description differentiated between Mormon and Christian. Did you set them straight?)

[_Daniel Peterson]

I just got finished reading Radicals for Capitalism, which is a pretty thorough history of the American libertarian movement. Definitely worth the read, if you get the time.

I got it for Christmas, but haven't read it yet.

I was a Randian in high school for about a week, which is how long it took for me to realize that she was out of her gourd.

She was also, it turns out, a witch with a capital "b." Really off the charts, from what I've read.