Arius is popular among those in the Idaho/Utah I-15 corridor. Yet is he the man in church history that we want to follow?
The Missionary’s Little Book of Answers (American Fork: Covenant Communications, 2002), compiled by Gilbert Scharffs, answers, “The dispute over the Godhead is not new to our day. Both before and after the Nicean council in A.D. 325, most Christians favored the view of a man named Arius, that Jesus was a being separate and distinct from the Father. This idea was favored by church fathers Ignatius, Hermes, Justin Martyr, Origen, and others. When Christianity became the state religion of the Roman empire, bishops, who insisted on the Arian view of separateness, were replaced” (p. 22).
Chiming in on Arius as well from their book, What Da Vinci Didn’t Know: An LDS Perspective (Salt Lake: Deseret Book, 2006), Richard Holzapfel, Andrew Skinner, and Thomas Wayment share, “Constantine’s exact role in the conference is unclear, and he apparently neither directed the conversations nor stipulated the conclusions that the participants should reach. Among other things, the council decided that the views of Arius and his followers were heretical and should be rejected outright. Arian bishops were compelled to renounce their heretical beliefs and bring their views into harmony with the Church. With sufficient spin, the denunciation of Arius and his beliefs could be interpreted as a vote on the humanity of Jesus because the central issue of Arianism was whether Jesus had been created during birth. Arius did not stipulate that Jesus had been created during birth here on earth but only asked the question whether there ever was a time when Jesus did not exist.”
The authors further write, “The Arian faction narrowly lost, but some have confused this vote with the issue of Jesus’ humanity when, in reality, both Arius and orthodox Christians unanimously believed in the divinity of Jesus. Constantine appears to have had little concern over whether the Arians or orthodox Christians prevailed. Later in his life, he was baptized by a bishop with Arian sympathies, even after those beliefs had been denounced at the Council of Nicea” (29-30).
Surely, Arian Christianity is highly favored in our neck of the woods. But how do Arius’ teachings about the Word match up with implications of that Greek verb in John 1:1? Is this first verse a foundation for how we look at Jesus Christ throughout the entirety of the Gospel?
Thinking of heart issues
Jesus in Idaho Falls 
I like your explanation but shouldn’t there be a comma between "which lighteth every man" and "that commeth into the world.
Congratulations Keith! You are the first to comment on an entry. Thanks for breaking the ice. I don’t have a KJV Bible in front of me, but I will check. Keep posting in order to keep me accurate.
There are definitely some relevant points of comparison between Arianism and the doctrine of Christ as understood by the Latter-day Saints. But it seems to me that there are also as many or more points of departure.
For example, the Arians believed that Jesus Christ was strictly a created being, that he was not co-eternal with the Father. Where the Latter-day Saints deny that and say that not only was Jesus co-eternal with the Father, but that each and every individual was as well, as an eternal, pre-existent, and self-existent spirit-intelligence. Compare D&C 93:23,29 with John 1:2:
Ye were also in the beginning with the Father…Man was also in the beginning with God. Intelligence, or the light of truth, was not created or made, neither indeed can be.
(D&C 93:23,29)
The [Word] was in the beginning with God.
(John 1:2)
Now of course we maintain that both the Father and the Son have bodies or tabernacles which when considered as such are not self-existent but rather created being. But as individuals both the Father and the Son and all of us are self-existent and co-eternal spirit-intelligences or what some call primal persons. Compare Job 38:7, Jer 1:5, Psalm 82, John 10:34
[BTW, The toolbar is neat, but it has some problems…]
gods and God
Mark, thanks for your clarification, though this is not the precise answer that I experience among some lay-LDS friends in Idaho Falls. From talking to you and others at times and seasons, I am sensing a new Mormon orthodoxy does rule and reign in the world of Bloggernacle. Many don’t seem to react strongly against Athanasius or the creed attributed to him.
And by the way, I am not a computer tech. I will have to ask someone how to improve on the toolbar (noticing also Robert’s observations). Basically, I am a technological ignoramus, a retrofit back to the early 90s, though I am only 36. My church family has to bring me kicking and screaming into the 21st century. Pathetic. I know. Until I figure out the glitch on the parenthesis, I will use italics and sometimes bold. So don’t interpret anything as yelling. 🙂 And I can’t seem to work the and symbol here in the comment section, so I will just spell out Doctrine and Covenants.
Having time last night, I examined your reply. I pulled out my KJV with the Topical Guide. To help my evangelical readers understand, let me express to them that you have pulled out two verses that could be found under the category of Antemortal Existence of Man (Job 38:7, Eccl. 12:7, Jer. 1:5, Zech. 12:1, John 9:2, Acts 17:28, Rom. 8:29, Eph. 1:4, Heb. 12:9, Jude 1:6, and Rev. 12:7) and then one O.T. chapter and then a N.T. verse from the category of Potential to Become like Heavenly Father (Lev. 19:2; Ps. 8:5-6, 82:6, Matt. 5:48, Luke 24:39, John 10:34, Acts 17:29, Rom. 8:17, 2 Cor. 3:18, Gal. 4:7; Eph. 4:13; Heb. 12:9; I Jn. 3:2; and Rev. 3:21). Currently, do LDS think of any other biblical verses or is this exhaustive to what is key to the discussion on the LDS concept of the eternal intelligence of man’s spirit and then the matter of taking seriously our responsibility of becoming more like God.
John 10:34 led me to Doctrine and Covenants 76:55-58 (within the context of a vision, a three tiered heaven that in good faith I as a Trinitarian looking for triads don’t see in the Bible, obviously, because Joseph Smith introduces this as new revelation after translating John 5:29), They are they who are the church of the Firstborn. They are they into hands the Father has given all things–They are they who are priests and kings, who have received of his fulness, and of his glory; and are priests of the Most High, after the order of Melchizedek, which was after the order of Enoch, which was after the order of the Only Begotten Son. Wherefore, as it is written, they are gods, even the sons of God–
Now, it is interesting that the wherefore connects gods with Only Begotten Son. From the Doctrines and Covenants, I can see how you might think that the bridge, though difficult and reserved only for the worthy, is crossable between gods and Only Begotten (a title referenced five times in the February 16, 1832 revelation). Yet there is a fundamental, ontological difference between the Son of God and sons of God (KJV John 1:12, but more accurately translated children of God) or the LORD God and gods (John 10:34). For me, when someone states that there is an order of the One and Only that other men can follow and attain, this is an oxymoron. It tears away at the very foundation of Christ’s uniqueness, His holiness (again from the Hebraic sense of being utterly unique). He is the only one of His kind and fiercely jealous about His own glory. How can gods arrive within the realm of the unique title, Only Begotten God, except only alongside the communicable qualities of Christ where we need transformation daily through grace on top of grace? According to Hebrews, the order of Melchizedek priesthood is reserved exclusively for Christ, plainly established as the superior High Priest. I simply don’t understand the position of the flood of Melchizedek high priests in our city, considering the unbelievable job description spelled out in the Bible.