This is just silly. All they have to do is declare it and it’s so.
Like the Nicean Creed is this whole nice run down of what we believe but it’s all really a cover to really stress the “begotten not made” line that split the church for a while back in Roman times.
I was raised LDS, so between the actual doctrine & “mormon folklore,” it would be like shooting fish in a barrel if i wanted to waste the day posting in this thread.
So, i will leave it to the OP.
Is this a different dispute than the one over the Filioque Clause (I believe in the Holy Spirit … Who proceeds from the Father and the Son …)?
The idea of original sin is that one cannot rise above one’s own selfishness without transcendent help.
One of the major concerns with original sin was this: if somebody can be a perfect Christian, on their own merit, then what obligation will they feel to give to the poor?
Another was explaining the goodness of creation. Greco-Roman tradition was that matter was bad, or at least not good, because it was perishable. Original sin (as the idea survived) explains that, no, our bodies are not bad. It is our will that is broken.
Sounds like a lot of words to keep infants out of heaven.
It is different. Trinitarian belief has three “persons” or “realities” of God mystically participating in a single Godhead. As I understand it, the Western church (ie the Roman Catholic Church) saw this as primarily relational. The different realities of God represent that God’s inherent being contains love. such as the love of the Father for the Son. Then the Holy Spirit must also have a relation to the other two, namely he follows from them.
The Eastern Church (ie the Greek Orthodox) saw this first as separated persons. So they did not need to specify the relation between the Holy Ghost and the other two Persons. They were not happy with the Western Church just kind of added that language to the creeds.
Then there was also the whole crusaders-sack-Constantinople debacle. And there was fighting between the two branches for converts in, say, Armenia, I think. Anyway, things went bad, leading to the schism. And then Western Europe didn’t help with the Turks took Constantinople. And I think Greece is still pretty angry about that.
But don’t worry, the Eastern Orthodox Church accepted an apology from the Pope about it in 2004.
The judgement on infants was a really unfortunate consequence. So was the identification of sexual desire with the mark of original sin, leading to shame that still causes a lot of pain.
It lead to a view of history as an exercise in human free will and freedom, and created the space for the recognition of the individual human person as something to be celebrated and protected. So it has its upsides.
(ADDED: it’s also part why the religious right is being so cruel to transgender individuals.)
IFYP
Bloodthirsty Turks!
Why do they call it Istanbul anyway?
None of your business!
Maybe he’s a Turk.
I was taught in Sunday School in the 1960’s not to take the Bible literally so I have no darnedest quotes to share unless being told that the Bible is a book of fables counts as darnedest.
Well then I wouldn’t have to ask, would I?
That’s nicer than the Southern Baptists. They think everyone else, including Catholics, are going straight to hell.
They might be one of the denominations that don’t even think we’re Christian. 
I saw an article once referring to CS Lewis as a “so-called Christian.”
My brother and I went to that Creation Museum in northern KY one time, just for the story. It was … very consistent with their messaging. 
Christian, Methodist tradition. “A day” as described in Genesis 1, did not necessarily refer to a 24 hour period. When my kids were kids I learned that Genesis 1 was poetry. As a kid I think I learned that Psalms and a few other books were poetry, but no one said anything about Genesis 1.
(Christian, Lutheran) I also recall learning that Genesis was about 100 years per day or something, but also actually days. It depended on the person teaching the class.