I may choose to ignore anonymous comments. I consider this type of anonymity dishonest. Also, I don't post regularly. I post when I have something worth writing and something worth reading. I explain all this in: Don't Let Telling Tales Trip Up Your Truthfulness.
Tuesday, November 2, 2010
Succinct Statement on Historical Christianity?
I ran across an article entitled, "Shared beliefs, honest differences" in the Beaufort Observer. To me it seemed accurate from a Mormon point-of-view. I've debated whether to publish any posting on it because it is not a mainstream publication and there is no identifiable author for this piece.
On review, I can report that the Beaufort Observer is a community web site. It is authored and edited by volunteers often in a wiki type process with conservative, religious goals.
So, I have no idea IF someone Mormon wrote this but they COULD have. I've extracted the crucial points from the article from a Mormon perspective:
"Historically, the doctrine of Trinity (one divine substance, three divine persons, namely the Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost) attained orthodox status in 325 AD at a council of Christian leaders convened by Emperor Constantine in the City of Nicaea in what is now northwest Turkey. The purpose of the council was to unify teachings of the Christian churches.
In its deliberations, the council of Nicaea resolved these seemingly conflicting positions by creating the doctrine of Trinity which is issued in a statement known as the Nicene Creed.
Fifty-six years later (381 AD, the Council by Constantinople attempted to clarify the doctrine by attributing physical unity to the Godhead.
The big criticism we found was that most traditional Christians could not accept God or Christ with tangible bodies at this point in time. Yet we found over thirty references to specific body parts of God in the scriptures and when the Savior revealed himself to his disciples, he taught them that he had a body of flesh and bones. (Luke 24:37-39) Other references say that he walked with his disciples, partook food and stood and sat after his resurrection.
To say I don't want your belief in my church may be legitimate but to deny another church who professes to be Christian the right to call themselves a Christian and say they are less Christian because their concept is not exactly like the one created at the meeting in Nicaea (and may in fact, be closer to the biblical rendering) seems not very Christian to this writer.