Nick pulled together some fascinating papers by various authors on this fundamental doctrine.
I am curious to see how LDS philosophers like Jim Faulconer, Blake Ostler, Clark Goble, Ben Huff, or Dan Peterson would give assent to the Trinitarian themes in articles #2, #4, #5, #6, and #8.
And did Blake Ostler really reject social trinitarianism, believing in monarchial monotheism back in 2005? Dynamic monarchianism?
Jesus in Idaho Falls 
Wow, this all takes me back to 2006 when I first greeted you all on Times and Seasons.
http://www.timesandseasons.org/?p=3519#more-3519
The time flies, doesn’t it?
Whoa, I started John 1 with my church family back in October of 2006. This Sunday, we begin John 8.
The Triune God has taught me much in this book.
Todd,
Blake’s third volume, which according to his site is supposed to be out today, will discuss virtually all of your questions in depth (especially his views on LT and ST); I think you will really like it. You should really re-read his post over at newcoolthang entitled “How Many Gods Are There?”, and especially his summary of chapter 6.
You can pre-order it at Deseret:
http://deseretbook.com/store/reviews?sku=5000966
I thought you’d like that link since you always talk about what Deseret Book is selling must be how we rate what is doctrinal.
Dart, was it that Blake was attracted to Moltmann’s “monarchial notion of divine Lordship”?
I think Blake’s reasoning comes more from LDS scripture, even though I personally disagree with him.
BTW – one thing I’ve never understood as how “fundamental doctrine” can be something so rarely focused on in the scriptures and which one has to eck out indirectly.
Clark, what about this?
Each one these doctrines are fundamental and clear.
1. In Scripture, there is one God – Creator of all and Redeemer.
2. Scripture beautifully, progressively, fully and distinctively reveals this one God (YHWH) as Father, Son, and Spirit in unique, loving, eternal relationship.
3. Neither Father, Son, or Spirit are lesser than the other.
These themes jump out over and over and over and over again in surveying the vast biblical data.
I don’t think (2) or (3) can be made via simple exegesis though.
I might agree with these, but I’m not sure they are clear. Further I’m not sure one can say they are fundamental (whatever that means). Put an other way, why is that fundamental rather than that Christ atoned for our sins? (Which seems to be the fundamental focus of the NT)
Clark, I would classify as fundamental doctrine that which is essential to the glory of God and the work of God in mankind’s salvation.
Think of all the ramifications and implifications of these three propositions for the matchless glory of Jesus Christ.
1. Yahweh is the incomparable God of gods in eternal existence – One God of all living in existence – only One – no one else.
2. Yahweh sent his Servant, the Messiah, one who is uncreated and eternal, the first and the last, no beginning (writings of Isaiah, the prophet, and John, the apostle).
3. The Messiah is as fully Yahweh as the Father.
And how about this?
1. Jehovah is the one and only, unrivaled God of all, transcendent and immanent, wholly other and yet personal and knowable, one of a kind in unique holiness and yet tenderful mercies and perfect lovingkindess.
a. The Father is Jehovah.
b. The Son is Jehovah.
c. The Spirit is Jehovah.
And all else imagining to be this one God, Jehovah, are the wicked imposters. YHWH bows to know one else. All other intelligence bow to YHWH, the source of life. If one is given the name of YHWH, though not YHWH in being, that one is a deceived imposter of the one true God Almighty. Though I will be exalted someday, I will still be a slave to this Yahweh forever. But it is a slavery I joyfully embrace. This incomparable God calls me friend, calls me a son. What grace that I don’t deserve. I have been redeemed, all my sin atoned for.