Perhaps one could've argued that a slight rewording was necessary for
clarity. (Perhaps "comparable" rather than "in-line".) I can't imagine
why this is cause to imagine that this segment of the article was part
of the anti-mormon propaganda machine. I think that despite the partial
citation you point out, the article was clear that we are in fact
significantly different from Arius in our theology. It just seemed,
pretty darned fair and I wouldn't have minded sharing it with all my
friends and neighbors without the slightest hesitation. I probably
wouldn't be comfortable mentioning that overzealous mormons launched a
brief cyber-political holy war (battle) attacking a fairly NPOV comment
describing our religion.
My point was that was not "in-line with Arianism"
As far as the Nicene Creed goes, and flexibility of interpretation, its
interpretation is certainly flexible enough to put our church in gross
violation. This is especially true from the POV of numerous traditional
Christians and it is explicitly not a violation of the NPOV to mention
that fact.
Unlike Arius, we don't believe in ex nihilo creation, we believe
intelligences were "organized", and generally speaking, I'm not too sure
we know what we mean by that. (It's hard to know what that means when we
don't even know rightly what an intelligence is.) However, it smells
very similar to Arianism (minus the ex nihilo) so we get called Arians.
I really think that's alot deeper than the wikipedia piece needed to go,
and as it was, it wasn't bad.
That's my POV, but I suppose I ought be silent on this issue now. I
signed up to the list because of all the great stuff I heard about being
developed, and I think my further POV'ing on this issue would be
counterproductive to that end. What's done is done.
_______________________________________________
Ldsoss mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.ldsoss.org/mailman/listinfo/ldsoss
