New Testament Christians

[zerinus]

Well, no they didn't. Traditional Christianity was around before Mormonism. Then we showed up and claimed, "We're more biblical than you." By definition, the burden would be on us to prove it.

We did not tell them that they were not Christians though. However, if they want us to prove that our position is biblical, I have no problem with that; but they will have to tell us why it is not biblical before we can tell them why it is. We start with the assumption that it is biblical. If they think it isn't, then the burden rests on them to tell us why it isn't, before we can explain to them why it is. Isn't that a logical position to hold in your opinion?

Edited September 28, 2011 by zerinus

[altersteve]

We did not tell them that they were not Christians though. However, if they want us to prove that our position is biblical, I have no problem with that; but they will have to tell us why it is not biblical before we can tell them why it is. We start with the assumption that it is biblical. If they think it isn't, then the burden rests on them to tell us why it isn't, before we can explain to them why it is. Isn't that a logical position to hold in your opinion?

I suppose it is. Thank you for explaining that.

[Senator]

Because they brought the accusation first.

They did?

One could rightly call the declarations in Joseph's First Vision the first shot across the bow.

[Ahab]

They did?

One could rightly call the declarations in Joseph's First Vision the first shot across the bow.

At which point all we have to say is what Jesus Christ told us, himself.

They'll never be able to prove that he didn't say what he said.

[Zakuska]

For continuities sake... "Latter-day Christians" might be a better term.

[Calm]

I vote (as if my vote meant anything) that we use the title Jesus gave us: "Saints".

Lehi

Which is why I prefer LDS.

[zerinus]

They did?

One could rightly call the declarations in Joseph's First Vision the first shot across the bow.

That was not a statement about the Christian faith as a whole. It was a statement about the squabbling Protestant ministers of the sectarian churches that Joseph Smith had encountered in the religious revival. It didn't mean that Christians are no longer Christians, or that Christianity as a whole is hopelessly corrupt.

[Ahab]

That was not a statement about the Christian faith as a whole. It was a statement about the squabbling Protestant ministers of the sectarian churches that Joseph Smith had encountered in the religious revival. It didn't mean that Christians are no longer Christians, or that Christianity as a whole is hopelessly corrupt.

The reference to corrupt professors was referring to the people who professed those corrupt creeds, and not necessarily those preachers Joseph encountered.

Many Christians had and still have no idea about those creeds because they don't get that deep into their church history.

[zerinus]

The reference to corrupt professors was referring to the people who professed those corrupt creeds, and not necessarily those preachers Joseph encountered.

Many Christians had and still have no idea about those creeds because they don't get that deep into their church history.

I believe that the harsh indictment of the Lord in the First Vision was directed primarily against those Protestant sects, and especially ministers and activists, rather than against Christendom as a whole, or even against all of the historic Christianity's "creeds". I believe that by "creeds" the Lord was referring specifically to Protestant creeds, or "confessions" as they are more often called, like the Westminster Confession that I linked to in another thread. If you read those by the light of the Spirit, you will realize that they are indeed abominable; whereas the earliest Christian creeds are not so objectionable form the LDS perspective.

[Vance]

The reference to corrupt professors was referring to the people who professed those corrupt creeds, and not necessarily those preachers Joseph encountered.

You are using a definition of "professor" that is different from what Joseph meant.

From the 1828 Webster's

1. One that publicly teaches any science or branch of learning; particularly, an officer in a university, college or other seminary, whose business is to read lectures or instruct students in a particular branch of learning; as a professor of theology or mathematics.

So it was EXACTLY "those preachers Joseph encountered".

Edited September 28, 2011 by Vance

[Ahab]

You are using a definition of "professor" that is different from what Joseph meant.

From the 1828 Webster's

1. One that publicly teaches any science or branch of learning; particularly, an officer in a university, college or other seminary, whose business is to read lectures or instruct students in a particular branch of learning; as a professor of theology or mathematics.

So it was EXACTLY "those preachers Joseph encountered".

I'm saying he was using the term "professors" in conjunction to the "creeds" he was talking about, as well as those who teach for doctrine the commandments of men.

First our Lord said he should join none of the churches (the different bodies of people) because they (the bodies, collectively) were all wrong. And then he said their creeds were an abomination in his sight and that those professors (those who professed those creeds) were all corrupt, that they (the corrupt professors) drew near to him with their lips while their hearts were far from him, that they (the corrupt professors) taught for doctrines the commandments of men, having a form of godliness while denying the power thereof.

Nowhere did he say that EVERY individual in those churches (bodies of people) were all wrong, or that some individuals didn't possess at least some understanding of the truth. He was talking particularly about the professors of those abominable creeds.