You seem to still be confused about what a "professor" is. A "professor" is simply a person that follows a religion (professes a religion). It doesn't have anything to do with academic professors that we think of today.

"Silly" is your word. But Joseph Smith did claim that God told him that all sects were wrong. If you think that sounds "silly", take it up with Joe.

Actually, a professor is one who professes. There are and were religious professors, and there were and are academic professors.

Who is "Joe"? do you mean Joseph Smith?

God, as I have shown, did not tell him that "all sects were wrong."

Simon:

In 1820, which church outside of the immediate vicinity of Palmyra, New York, was the true church?

All churches that added to the good in the world had and have truth.

If you want to talk about George P. Lee, please do so in another thread.

Then why did the priesthood need to be restored through Joseph Smith?

That's the way God wanted it.

Why did the priesthood need to be restored at all?

That's the way God wanted it.

Yes. And church members "profess" their belief in their religion. That is what he was referring to.



Yes. Joe is easier to type than Joseph.



Asserting something is the case and showing something is the case are two very different things. You have done the former, but not the latter. And the first vision account clearly and unambiguously said that God told Joseph that all of the sects were wrong and that their followers (professors) were corrupt.

Why did God want to restore something superfluous, since all churches have truth and are equally acceptable to God?

Do you concede that if someone is baptized as an Episcopalian or a Roman Catholic, and lives a good, Christian life, but never accepts any ordinances performed by Latter-day Saint priesthood authority, and rejects the idea that Joseph Smith was a prophet, this someone will be able to live in the presence of God and be able to be exalted?

Simon's responses here illustrate how the LDS faith actually encourages duplicity when speaking on the public level. The answers depend on the audience, as always. Missionaries will tell you that there was no true Church, ever, until the restoration. But Simon can't accept that now. The Mormons have vested so much into this notion of being the poor little persecuted innocents, that some of then are willing to back away from their own Church's teachings in order to maintain that identity.

For some, being the uniquely persecuted is above all else. It is who they are. They've embraced that and it is hard to let it go.

Merely without the power to effectuate the ordinances of salvation through baptism by immersion and the laying on of hands which brings the spirit and the baptism of the holy ghost.


Here is what Elder Dallin H. Oaks had to say about it:
New Era » 2009 » September


Simon, the always thorough scholar.


Wiki-first vision


That is what it means because Simon needs it to mean that, not for truth's sake, not to reach mutual understanding and knowledge about his religion, but for his personal ego.

See above.


Discussing Mormon history and how its believers view their religion with Simon, would be like going to Detroit to see how GM operates from the top down, and getting all your details from the affirmative action handicapped hire that works in the breakroom wiping up coffee spills and picking up the discarded hot pocket wrappers.

And just like Simon you toss out "bigotry" to divert and garnish sympathy... pathetic.


No, you are lying, as responding to a question doesn't constitute an answer. You responded to questions I didn't ask you, and failed to answer the question I did ask you.


And here is where the windbag needs to insert the same redundant sentiment over and over by breaking every individual sentence down to paint the ruse that you actually did answer the question... which you and Simon clearly have not, nor have you addressed the actual data presented.


Note in the above how breaking down every response into individual sentences is how Pahoran plays the diversion game.



And yet again playing the sympathy card by using "bigot" to hide behind the ruse that you've actually said something worth reading... you could have answered the question, but you can't and we both know why. You're really nothing more than fodder without any substance.




Are you really this slow? I didn't ask you who wrote it down, I ask you who said it, and you once again just broke down the same sentences and repeated your lack of an answer. Is this question too hard for you... the data too compelling?


Note to anyone with an ounce of intelligence... look at how many times Pahoran has attempted to dodge the question asked by saying the same damn thing over and over while needing support from others to agree with his lack of an answer.


We finally have the answer. It's completely wrong, but at least you finally answered the question. Since you didn't acknowledge the data, here the actual piece of Mormon history with the note stating who said the words.



Do you see the note to the left Pahoran... the one that says "Comment of the prophet"... did you see that actual piece of data presented? Are you claiming William Clayton was the prophet? Do you have any data in support of your argument?


Please address the data and its source if you wish to make false claims on nothing but your imagination. Please link me some data that addresses your claim and not some Mormon site that supposedly contains your point that I must research. You are very good at quoting things, as you continue to break down every post into 20 responses that all say the same thing, so please use the quote feature and post your data in support of your claims. Here's a good source Pahoran: http://mormonthink.com/kinderhookweb.htm


We heard you the first four times drama queen. Once again, Pahoran, it's not necessary to break down a post into individual sentences and continue to say the same thing multiple times. Just wrap it up in one paragraph... unless your intent is to create a diversion, which is your intent.


Now the victim card is played. You did answer the question in this response.. for the first time. It was an incorrect answer based on nothing but false claims, but at least you finally responded to the question asked.


I heard you the first four times you played the sympathy card... pathetic.



You just contradicted yourself. When you said,"The 'I' is obviously William Clayton; he traced the plates into his journal" what did you mean? Also, please address the data presented which states those words were said by The Prophet.


We're just getting started Pahoran. You are backed into a corner with contradiction at the root of your answer to the question asked, failing to acknowledge the data presented. I suspect you'll flee the discussion now, because in here the mods won't chime in to help you. You need help... support, don't you? You could just clarify your answer and we'll see who wins, but it's not a game Phaoran, just what is true vs. what is false based on facts that support why we disagree on Mormon history.


And the drama queen inserts a :highfive: that's basically a flare shot in the sky in a desperate plea for help. I'm sure Rapunzel will come to your side in a show of support, because you do need the help. In response your demands, Simon failed to answer the question asked. Again, responding to the question asked doesn't constitute an answer. Simon did say the Prophet "may" have been tricked, but that was the extent of the answer. Simon also claimed there was tangible evidence to support the truth claims in Mormonism, which he failed to back up with anything but a link to a Mormon site which he claimed contained the evidence he stated existed... without any mention of what it was. In short Pahoran, if you're looking for some outside help, you may want a more credible source to help support your team effort.


...more drama, for at least the fifth time.


You Mormon guys and the childish insults. Keep it up Pahoran, it only shows the lengths you need to go to to answer a simple question. The internet is a shield and lets the Simon types play hero, but all I'm looking for is an answer. Can you explain why the history of the church states, Comments of the Prophet on the Kinderhook plates? Wasn't the Prophet's name Joseph Smith? Wouldn't that mean that "I" in the statement, I have translated a portion of them, and find they contain the history of the person with whom they were found. He was a descendant of Ham, through the loins of Pharaoh, king of Egypt, and that he received his kingdom from the Ruler of heaven and earth was Joseph Smith?

Thanks for answering the question Pahoran... I disagree (based on the facts presented) with your contradictions regarding who "I" was, or that there's any doubt of who "I" in claiming it's unknown.

Have a nice day.

Some data:
http://www.mormonthink.com/QUOTES/christianity.htm



Then we have Joseph Smith attempting to join the Methodist church in 1828, after he supposedly saw the "personages" which told him that it was supposedly wrong.

http://www.mormonthink.com/QUOTES/methodist.htm

It is just like thews to act in this manner.

He asks a question, Pahoran and myself answer it (more than once), then thews claims we never answered the question.

LOL

I never said they were equally acceptable to God. They all have some measure of truth, some more than others. None of them are "wrong."



They will be able to enjoy the blessings of exaltation and living in the presence of God, because there will be missionary work in the spirit world.

So if a church teaches that God is an incorporeal spirit that manifests itself in three different ways, without body, parts, or passions, this is not wrong.

If a church teaches that Jesus was the archangel Michael but is not God with a capital "G", this is not wrong.

If a church teaches that babies have to be baptized or they will go to hell, this is not wrong.



No, do not rephrase my question for me. I specified that this person NEVER accepts any LDS ordinances. Not in this life, not in the next life. This person rejects Joseph Smith as a prophet, PERIOD. Rejects it in this life, rejects it in the next life.

This person, who lived a good Christian life but rejected the teachings and authority of the LDS Church both here and in the next life, will of course make it to the Celestial Kingdom and be eligible for exaltation.

Right?

That particular teaching is not entirely truthful, but that doesn't make that church "wrong."



That particular teaching is not true, but that doesn't make that entire church "wrong."



That particular teaching is not entirely truthful, but that doesn't make that church "wrong."



The atonement works for all, Darth J.



This is my opinion: eventually, yes.

Then we do not need the LDS Church, because if no church is "wrong," then all of them are "right."



Then we do not need the LDS Church, because if no church is "wrong," then all of them are "right."



Then we do not need the LDS Church, because if no church is "wrong," then all of them are "right."



Then we do not need the LDS Church, because the Atonement works independently of priesthood authority and priesthood ordinances.



Then we do not need the LDS Church, nor does the teaching about missionary work in the spirit world mean anything, nor is there any reason to perform ordinance for the dead in temples. Everyone who leads a good life will make it to the Celestial Kingdom, anyway.

As long as we do not join one of the local congregations existing in 1820 in the immediate vicinity of Palmyra, New York, it really doesn't matter which church you join.

Thank you for explaining why the LDS Church is totally superfluous and unnecessary.

How incredibly dense of you. The tide of your illogic has once again risen to heights not seen for decades. Are you seriously asserting that all things not wrong are automatically right?
Then we do not need the LDS Church, because the Atonement works independently of priesthood authority and priesthood ordinances.



Not entirely. The atonement works for all those who, in this life and the next, accept Jesus Christ.



I believe they will, but the shortest and most rewarding path is provided by the LDS Church.