In fact, the Arians cited the same scriptures you see on these posts to justify Mormonism
The Arian heresy arose out of personal interpretation. It didn’t exist in any teaching, anywhere, until someone thought it up (not Arius). It fooled a lot of people. That JS thought up the same thing 1700 or so years later and is fooling people with a similar (they are NOT the same) heresy, says nothing about truth. Only about the fallibility of personal interpretation.
You seem to be pouting about that you can’t believe what you want to believe. You want truth to be relative and the Catholic Church says, no, it isn’t.
Have you ever heard of a little thing called the Inquisition?
You seem to be stuck on the Inquisition. Perhaps you should start a thread on it so you can get it all out.
No I guess you are right. Killing heretics is not “information shaping”. The church didn’t “spin” or “shape” doctrine, it just killed those it disagreed with.
The Church did not kill people.
It’s information ELIMINATION. Unnatural selection. Suddenly everyone agrees that apostolic succession is true.
So now, truth is about natural selection? What makes you feel good? Do what you feel, feel until the end?
That doctrine that Arius wrote was the main theology of the first century Christians.
Of all the sources in the world, you pick wikipedia. Wikipedia rarely has anything correct. For one, the bold, underline you have going there looks like a Mormon edit. Something wikipedia suffers from on any topic that effects Mormon theology. I have NEVER seen any proof that this has any facts behind it.*
…Because most written material on Arianism was written by its opponents, the nature of Arian teachings is difficult to define precisely today.
So, you’re arguing a probability. A supposition? A guess? Maybe a hope?
“Some of them say that the Son is an eructation, others that he is a production, others that he is also unbegotten. These are impieties to which we cannot listen, even though the heretics threaten us with a thousand deaths. But we say and believe and have taught, and do teach, that the Son is not unbegotten, nor in any way part of the unbegotten; and that he does not derive his subsistence from any matter; but that by his own will and counsel he has subsisted before time and before ages as perfect God, only begotten and unchangeable, and that before he was begotten, or created, or purposed, or established, he was not. For he was not unbegotten. We are persecuted, because we say that the Son has a beginning, but that God is without beginning.” (Peters, Heresy and Authority in Medieval Europe, p. 41) "
*I don’t think you are able to grasp at all what you have copied and pasted here and how it relates to Catholic doctrine.
It is fairly obvious how this can be seen as very close to the Mormon position today.
Mormons believe that Jesus is begotten, and yet co-eternal with the Father, but yet that Jesus is the “spirit son” of the father. The Father was the Father “before” Jesus was the “Son”, and all of this occured outside of our current temporal references. In some sense, He is subservient, which is obvious from his acknowledgement that the Father is, well, the Father.
So this position is VERY close to the Mormon position, at least in the relationship between the Father and the Son.
Close, but not quite. And, you are leaving out other Arian doctrines that have nothing in common with Mormonism, at all. You can’t claim Arianism and not adhere to all the beliefs of that heresy. All you can show is that personal interpretation produces similar errors. Which is exactly why personal interpretation cannot be relied on. It always leads to false teachings, thus false beliefs.
Mormons would totally disagree with them in relation to the Holy Ghost however.
So, the gospel of Arian wasn’t the correct teaching after all. Not the true church. Make up your mind.
So in the last two days, without any real research,except what you guys have handed me on a silver platter, I have shown how 2 major points of LDS doctrine existed in the early church and were condemned by councils of the church. (“Pre-existence” and Jesus and the Father being two distinct beings, one the Son of the other)
EVERYTHING is Mormonism to you, or proof that Mormonism is “true”. I think you would say this about any random quote that I pulled out of anywhere. You tug and pull and twist it until it matches your beliefs. That is what you do. Which has nothing to do with truth.
And you have admitted that 80% of the church believed at least one of these doctrines.
99% of the world could believe that God were a flying purple people eater. That wouldn’t make them right.
Boy that Joe Smith was pretty clever to research all those church councils and take on the doctrines seen as “heretical”. Very clever indeed. I guess it was that Catholic university education he received.
Quite the opposite, I have never seen anything, anywhere, that indicates JS was ever exposed to Catholic doctrines. What he came up with is pure personal interpretation. The same as every heretic that has ever been born.
But his
mom didn’t write about the first vision. Oh well I guess that proves he was a fake. I better get to confession before the Inquistion gets me.
There is much more than that that proves he was fake. For one, he came up with false beliefs and doctrines that he taught as truth. The list is endless but maybe you can start with polyandry.
And a pretty cherry-picking one at that.