"...Because None Of Them Had The Complete Truth."

[ldsfaqs]

This thread is a perfect example of how anti-mormons become so ingrained in their hate, that they simply can't see anything beyond their narrow warped view, fully unwilling to apply the same standards to their own faith and views that they apply to us. For example entire point of this thread. Mr. Bowman would have no problem with anyone in his own faith making a basic summary of some event from history, yet, with the Mormons, it becomes not a basic summary, but something else, something sinister, something the mormons are trying to hide, by not indicating the exact words used and every detail. To him, our summary is a "false" one, because we didn't use the exact words, yet the entire point of the event itself, WAS exactly what the summary states.

LDS in this thread have explained every which way why and how it's a simple "summary" of the events in question, yet, Rob Bowman continues to reject every explanation, the simple common sense and logic, to instead continue believing LDS are "lying" about their own faith (yes, i.e. the specific video). Of course, he's also saying WE are lying, because he refuses to accept any of our explanations as being "valid" of WHY the video said things the way it did.

You also never responded to my post Mr. Bowman...

Over and over again, we see these kinds of threads with anti-mormons, and with Mr. Bowman. They so believe we are lying about something about us, or interpret something about us in a certain way, and then no matter how we try to clarify for them to understand, to see the logic and how we view things, it's like we are talking to a wall. They just keep going right along believing their conspiracy theory about us.

Edited October 20, 2011 by ldsfaqs

[Vance]

1. If we are truly honest, we will represent what others believe as fairly and accurately as possible.

Two biblical statements epitomize the great importance of speaking honestly about what other people believe. The Old Testament tells us, “If one gives an answer before he hears, it is his folly and shame” (Proverbs 18:13 ESV). To put it bluntly, if we criticize other people before understanding what they really are saying, we will only look foolish and embarrass ourselves. . . .

Oh, the irony!!!

Frankly, the thought of embarrassing myself by misconstruing others has been a major motivation to me personally to work very hard to understand what people of other religions believe and why they believe it. I don’t always get it right—I can’t claim to have attained perfection in this or any other area—but I can honestly say that I work as hard as anyone to be fair, accurate, and complete in understanding what other people believe before I criticize those beliefs.

Me thinks thou doest protest too much.

The other biblical statement is by far the more famous. It is the “Golden Rule” articulated by Jesus: “So whatever you wish that others would do to you, do also to them, for this is the Law and the Prophets” (Matthew 7:12 ESV). Like everyone else I know, I want other people to understand me.

But do you want them to attack your faith through misrepresentations?

I do not like it when other people lie about me, or carelessly misrepresent what I believe.

How about careful misrepresentation? Do you dislike that as well?

Since I want other people to represent my positions fairly and accurately, I ought to make every effort to do for others in this regard what I would like them to do for me, by representing what they think as carefully, clearly, and correctly as I can.

YES!!!, you ought.

Like I said, me thinks thou doest protest too much.

[Grundelwalken]

Try here and here (just two of the several places where the First Vision story appears on LDS.org). Also see here, for just one of many articles that comment negatively on Catholic and Protestant Christian groups. I'm sure a few more minutes would turn up quite a few more such examples.

.

Again, I'm not obfuscating truth. The producers of the video I was criticizing did, however.

I'm not preaching against anyone. I preach Christ. I do, however, seek to defend the truth about Christ and refute error about him.

Again, I am not twisting anything, and there is no rancor and certainly no venom in my opening post or in my approach to the issues that divide us.

I guess I can see how how you think a history lesson on the apostasy might be considered an attack. But compared with the (ok, I won't use venomous because it offends) manner of attack used by some who are preaching against the LDS Church, that is very tame indeed. Yes, Joseph stated that their teachings were an abomination but he did not spend his life seeking to destroy ANY other religion. He (and we in this day) only sought to invite others to share in the truth we feel we have received. There is a difference in the method of presentation. We do not preach against anyone when we pursue the spreading of the gospel. In fact, in all my years of sharing the gospel, I have tried to refrain (though I am human and have been known to err) from 'bashing' because it has never proven to be useful as a tool for teaching of Christ. You won't see it that way and I respect your right to do so, but the methods used by the LDS faith are much less strident and offensive than the "attack" methods employed by other denominations.

Again, I would refer to the teachings of Paul which try to lead us to the gift of charity. How does spending one's life in pursuit of the destruction of a faith that is neither violent nor leads others to treat their fellowman with hatred performing the Lord's work? If fruits are the true judgment of a faith, it seems to me that the fruits of an LDS lifestyle would qualify (at least in some grudging way) for recognition as a faith that is seeking to live Christ-like values.

What better way to express our faith and the duty we have been given than to quote the Prophet Nephi:

"And we talk of Christ, we rejoice in Christ, we preach of Christ, we prophesy of Christ, and we write according to our prophecies, that our children may know to what source they may look for a remission of their sins." (2 Nephi 25:26)

This is my faith and it is the faith of many on this board. No one can tell me that I DO NOT believe in Christ, for my life is given in His service. I want nothing to do with the destruction of anyone else's faith, no matter how incorrect I might consider it to be. I do not wish to change any man except as they desire to be changed. I only wish others would have the same consideration so that there would be less contention and more charity in this difficult world. Of course, that is a wish that will only come in the future but I anticipate it with much interest.

The motivation of many who visit this site (and others) is not consistent with the works the Savior called His followers to undertake. God bless all Father's children with the wisdom to find peace and joy in the gospel of Christ. Until next time. MW

[Bruce Schaalje]

Can you find any distortions of the truths of the LDS religion in the following article?

===================================

LOVE, HONESTY, AND THE DEFENSE OF THE FAITH

Robert M. Bowman Jr.

Perhaps the two best chapters in the LDS manual Gospel Principles are chapters 30 and 31, which discuss “Charity” and “Honesty.” These chapters make excellent points regarding both topics and show that LDS religion at its best reflects substantial agreement with some basic Christian values. Among the many important affirmations found in these chapters are the following:

Rob,

I like the article. It's polite and complimentary, and It doesn't seem to have any explicit distortions of the LDS religion. Still, if you want it to be completely inoffensive to Mormons yet still convey your basic message, I suggest the follow minor changes to the first paragraph:

Perhaps the two best Two nice chapters in the LDS manual Gospel Principles are chapters 30 and 31, which discuss “Charity” and “Honesty.” These chapters make excellent points regarding both topics and show that LDS religion at its best reflects substantial agreement with some basic values also held by other Christian values churches. Among the many important affirmations found in these chapters are the following:

Also, you might consider changing "Mormons" to "Mormon Christians" throughout.

[T-Shirt]

What if you said the statements about you were all wrong?

The word "all" refers to the various churches, not the various beliefs. In other words, if there were multiple statements about me that had false information mingled with truth, I would say, "They are all wrong."

It's not that hard.

Best,

T-Shirt

[LeSellers]

you might consider changing "Mormons" to "Mormon Christians" throughout.

Or he could use the official name for members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints: Saints.

Lehi

[cinepro]

The word "all" refers to the various churches, not the various beliefs. In other words, if there were multiple statements about me that had false information mingled with truth, I would say, "They are all wrong."

It's not that hard.

Best,

T-Shirt

My definition of "creeds" is "various beliefs", so for me it is that hard.

19 I was answered that I must join none of them, for they were all wrong; and the Personage who addressed me said that all their creeds were an abomination in his sight; that those professors were all corrupt; that: “they draw near to me with their lips, but their hearts are far from me, they teach for doctrines the commandments of men, having a form of godliness, but they deny the power thereof.”

[Ron Beron]

In this LDS video on "Joseph and the Restoration," part of the "Mormons Made Simple" series (on its own website and on YouTube), the narrator reports that God and Jesus Christ appeared to Joseph Smith in 1820 "and told him to join none of the churches, because none of them had the complete truth":

Isn't this a misrepresentation of what Joseph himself claimed Christ had told him in that vision?

I see it as akin to saying "Mormonism is completely false" with "Some aspects of Mormonism are true, but they are still false". Which way is it?

[Rob Bowman]

Steve,

You wrote:

If only others had this kind of knowledge of what it truly means to be a Christian. Beautifully said.

If those others don't have this "knowledge of what it truly means to be a Christian," then may we not conclude that they are not truly Christians?

[Rob Bowman]

T-Shirt,

You wrote:

You seem to be doing the same thing as Rob. I have never understood why people try to create such a false dichotomy as this.

If you mean that I said that the First Vision story teaches that traditional Christian churches have no truth at all, no, I did not do that.

You wrote:

Let me give you an example:

Let's say that someone wrote the following statement about me:

"Mr. T-Shirt is 52 years old, tall, handsome, self employed, was born in Albuquerque and is a child molester."

Now, I would say this statement is both wrong and an abomination.

However, since five of the six things are, actually, true, it would not be misleading or disingenuous if someone were to, instead, say that the statement did not have all the truth or that the statement contained much truth but was not fully accurate.

Either way that one refers to the statement, it is both acceptable and accurate.

This is more clever than illuminating as to the words Christ is said to have spoken to Joseph in the First Vision. As has already been pointed out, the paraphrase "because none of them had the complete truth" is misleading because the LDS Church doesn't have the complete truth, either, even on its own view of itself. Furthermore, if someone were to describe you as you imagined, I seriously doubt that you would say that the description was "not fully accurate." Turn the argument around. Suppose you heard someone say those things about you and you replied, "That last thing you said was a lie." Would you accept the liar's paraphrase, "According to Mr. T-Shirt, my description of him was not fully accurate" or "...was not the complete truth about him"? I doubt it. Likewise, the paraphrase "because none of them had the complete truth" is misleading because the point of the words attributed to Christ is that all of the churches were so far off the mark (even if they had some truth) that the overall assessment was that all of them were "wrong" and all of their creeds were an "abomination." I don't object to paraphrasing, but a paraphrase ought to convey the point reasonably well.

[Rob Bowman]

Dan,

You wrote:

So it is dishonest to remove aggressive or otherwise unnecessary rhetoric or tone when paraphrasing an historical text in an independent context. Ok. So when you read Gen 38:9 or 2 Kgs 18:27 in church or with others, do you dishonestly misrepresent the rhetoric by using euphemisms like modern Bible translations do, or do you use the vulgarities they used?

Are you serious?

First, I don't see any euphemistic renderings in most of the modern Bible translations at either of the verses you mentioned. In Genesis 38:9, the text literally says "spilled on the ground," which appears to be a rather literal statement of what Onan did. Most modern versions have something like "spilled/wasted his seed/semen on the ground," an accurate translation. In 2 Kings 18:27, most versions have something like "eat their own dung/excrement and drink their own urine," which is hardly euphemistic! Neither of these texts is softened in most modern versions.

Second, there are undoubtedly other places in the Bible where modern versions do use euphemistic language to be more polite, but such euphemistic rendering of vulgarities, as you called them, has no doctrinal or spiritual significance. By contrast, the more politically correct paraphrase of the First Vision statement under discussion is doctrinally misleading.

Let me answer my own question: No, you are not being serious with this response.

[LeSellers]

My definition of "creeds" is "various beliefs", so for me it is that hard.

Why would you reject the traditional definition of "creed" and invent one of your own?

A creed is, in nearly every religion derived from ancient Christianity, a formal statement of beliefs. In general, a creed is one of several such statements crafted by men in the III~XVI, e.g., The Apostolic Creed, the Nicean Creed.

Your making Christ's words to Joseph into something other than what they actually say makes one visualize an ulterior motive.

Lehi

[Rob Bowman]

The responses to my opening post here have been fascinating because they have been all over the place. One person acknowledged forthrightly that it is a “misrepresentation”; two others admitted that it was a “slight” misrepresentation, or a misrepresentation “to a degree.” Another compared it to using euphemisms to express vulgarities in the Bible; similarly, someone suggested that it is a “softer” was of saying the same thing. One suggested that Christ’s harsh words of condemnation in the First Vision story applied only to local congregations of Joseph’s day and place. All of the other responses have been attempts to divert attention to irrelevancies:

• The First Vision doesn’t teach that other churches have no truth at all (this has been the most popular response; but I never suggested it did)
  
• Mormons Made Simple is not an official LDS Church website (I never suggested it was, and there is no rational reason for ignoring what Mormons say unofficially)
  
• Mormons Made Simple is intended for children (partly, but would it hurt the kids to tell them that Christ said that all of the churches were wrong and their creeds offended God?)
  
• It’s a summary (no kidding, but the issue is whether the summary is accurate)
  
• It’s a paraphrase (no kidding, but the issue is whether the paraphrase is accurate)
  
• It isn’t necessary to use the exact words (I never suggested it was)
  
• Evangelicals feel slighted by the LDS Church’s claim (my feelings are irrelevant to the issue)
  
• Mormons don’t preach against other religions (they do if they preach what Christ supposedly told Joseph, instead of some softer restatement)
  
• Mormons believe in Christ (I never said they didn’t)
  
• The criticism is a “gotcha” (no, not for honest Mormons)
  
• My intentions are bad (my intentions are irrelevant, but the truth is that my intentions are not bad)
  
• I make a career out of criticizing the LDS Church (This has been a major part of what I do only for the past three years, and I would say the same thing regardless, so this criticism is irrelevant)
  
• I’m promoting a conspiracy theory about Mormons as liars (simply false)
  
• Vague complaints about people being unloving in their criticisms of the LDS religion (nothing here of substance to answer)
  
• I supposedly hate Mormons (Not so, but some of them are very irritating!)
  
• I don’t monitor and criticize every fundamentalist publication or video (nor do I expect Mormons to monitor or criticize every LDS work)
  
• I supposedly consign everyone in China to hell (I don’t)
  
• Joseph heard other things not recorded (Is the video’s statement supposed to summarize things we have not been told in the First Vision story??)
  
• Joseph did translate the plates as depicted in LDS artwork (This one wins the prize for the most irrelevant comment!!)
  

Those of you who are indignant at me because I didn’t accept your answer might want to reflect on the fact that other Mormons here gave different answers—and that most of those answers have been demonstrably irrelevant to the issue.

Edited October 21, 2011 by Rob Bowman

[LDSGuy]

"Because none of them had the complete truth" and "were all wrong" are the same. If one does not have all the right information about an issue, that means they're wrong.

Lets say someone has read a little about coronary bypass surgery. Do they have all the info they need to do that surgery? Would you trust someone with partial information? They are wrong in assuming they can perform that surgery with partial information.

Now, did the people of the denominations of Joseph's time know they only had partial information/truth? Most likely not. Did God know they had only partial and incomplete truth? Yes. Therefore God could say they were wrong in their assumptions about how to return to his presence, and teaching people the wrong way to God is wrong or an abomination.

Did the video of the producer intentionally mislead people with the rewording? Only the producer can answer that for us. Did the producer use softer language so that people are not offended? Most likely. Most of us use more tactful language in our conversations with others about sensitive issues. God, on the other hand, was more direct to Joseph in a private setting in the "sacred" grove. Joseph Smith, in his history, was merely repeating what God had told him.

[maklelan]

Dan,

You wrote:

Are you serious?

Yes. Are you not?

First, I don't see any euphemistic renderings in most of the modern Bible translations at either of the verses you mentioned. In Genesis 38:9, the text literally says "spilled on the ground," which appears to be a rather literal statement of what Onan did. Most modern versions have something like "spilled/wasted his seed/semen on the ground," an accurate translation.

So when you read that verse to children, do you use "seed" or "semen"? Do you explain it when they ask what it means, or do you paraphrase in a way that considers their sensitivities?

In 2 Kings 18:27, most versions have something like "eat their own dung/excrement and drink their own urine," which is hardly euphemistic! Neither of these texts is softened in most modern versions.

Yes, it is euphemistic. In the Hebrew the words are vulgarities, and the vulgarities are quite intentional and quite germane to the text's rhetoric. "Dung" and "urine" are not vulgarities, they are rather sterile replacements. This is a soldier trying to provoke an enemy. A rhetorically honest translation would render "eat their own s*** and drink their own p***."

What about 1 Sam 20:30? Sure "son of a perverse and rebellious woman" is technically an accurate rendering of the constituent elements, but the phrase is a vulgar colloquialism that has a much more semantically accurate equivalent in English that would be "son of a female dog" if it were to be as woodenly rendered in another language. That kinda robs the rhetorical force of the passage just in the interest of the sensitivities of the readers. We don't them thinking the Bible has bad words in it. How do you translate σκυβαλα in Phil 3:8? "Refuse"? "Garbage"? "Trash"? All rhetorically manipulative. "They're worth s***" would be rhetorically accurate, and if you insisted on toning it down, "they're worth crap."

Second, there are undoubtedly other places in the Bible where modern versions do use euphemistic language to be more polite, but such euphemistic rendering of vulgarities, as you called them, has no doctrinal or spiritual significance. By contrast, the more politically correct paraphrase of the First Vision statement under discussion is doctrinally misleading.

I don't see any misleading doctrine in it. I just see a softening of rhetoric that really serves no purpose to the video.

Let me answer my own question: No, you are not being serious with this response.

I'll thank you not to put words into my mouth.

[Rob Bowman]

Dan,

I was not putting words in your mouth, but stating my own opinion of your argument. If the statement Christ is supposed to have made is so softened rhetorically that it comes across as inoffensive -- as LDS Guy, for example, just acknowledged -- then the doctrinal point has been lost, which is that God supposedly detested all of the churches. Comparing this to someone using literally correct but rhetorically less vulgar language when referring to human waste is just silly, even if you intended it to be serious.

[LeSellers]

the doctrinal point ... is that God supposedly detested all of the churches.

Please refrain from jumping to unwarranted conclusions about what Jesus told Joseph.

He did not say He detested all other churches. He said that their creeds were an abomination. Why? On this point He did not elaborate (as far as the record goes, any way), but we can conclude that it was because (your creeds focusing, as they do, on the nature of God) that they misrepresent Who and What He is, and on the nature of the relationship between God and man.

It is bad enough that you frequently put words in our mouths. It is infinitely worse for you to put words in God's mouth.

Lehi

Edited October 21, 2011 by LeSellers

[Rob Bowman]

LDS Guy,

You wrote:

Did the video of the producer intentionally mislead people with the rewording? Only the producer can answer that for us. Did the producer use softer language so that people are not offended? Most likely. Most of us use more tactful language in our conversations with others about sensitive issues. God, on the other hand, was more direct to Joseph in a private setting in the "sacred" grove. Joseph Smith, in his history, was merely repeating what God had told him.

I don't claim that the video's producer intentionally sought to mislead people. I do think, however, the video's paraphrase is misleading, since, as you acknowledge, it appears intended to avoid offending people. I'd rather be offended and told what you really believe than to be told something that is inoffensive but not the whole truth about what you believe. And there's the irony of this whole thing. The video does exactly what its producers claim Christ said the churches did -- it fails to tell the whole truth. By omitting the offensive bits, the video omits crucial elements of LDS doctrine and thus misleads by omission -- just as you and others here have argued that traditional Christian churches were "wrong" because they were missing important elements of the gospel of salvation.

[Rob Bowman]

Lehi,

The First Vision story says that Christ described the churches as all being wrong, their creeds as an abomination, and the professors of those creeds as people whose hearts were far from him. Thus, he supposedly criticized the institutions, their teachings, and their adherents. That would appear to indicate that he was pretty disgusted with the churches.

Please refrain from jumping to unwarranted conclusions about what Jesus told Joseph.

He did not say He detested all other churches. He said that their creeds were an abomination. Why? On this point He did not elaborate (as far as the record goes, any way, but we can conclude that it was because (your creeds focusing, as they do, on the nature of God) that they misrepresent Who and What He is, and on the nature of the relationship between God and man.

It is bad enough that you frequently put words in our mouths. It is infinitely worse for you to put words in God's mouth.

Lehi

[california boy]

So it is dishonest to remove aggressive or otherwise unnecessary rhetoric or tone when paraphrasing an historical text in an independent context. Ok. So when you read Gen 38:9 or 2 Kgs 18:27 in church or with others, do you dishonestly misrepresent the rhetoric by using euphemisms like modern Bible translations do, or do you use the vulgarities they used?

It seems like the exact words Christ used would be an important part of the revelation that should NOT be summarized, changed or altered. Is that what Christ said or not? If you don't believe that Joseph Smith recorded exactly what Christ said to him, then one has to ask "What kind of prophet was Joseph Smith?" Or perhaps other prophets also did not write exactly what Christ revealed to them as well. Does the term abomination does not really mean anything to be concerned about? Is everyone ok with glossing over all the other times that God has called something abominable?

[maklelan]

Dan,

I was not putting words in your mouth, but stating my own opinion of your argument. If the statement Christ is supposed to have made is so softened rhetorically that it comes across as inoffensive -- as LDS Guy, for example, just acknowledged -- then the doctrinal point has been lost, which is that God supposedly detested all of the churches.

I don't understand that to be the doctrinal point here.

Comparing this to someone using literally correct but rhetorically less vulgar language when referring to human waste is just silly, even if you intended it to be serious.

I don't see a doctrinal manipulation in the paraphrase, and I flatly reject the notion that the doctrinal point of the First Vision was that God detested all Christian churches. That's not a doctrine of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. The statement is just a paraphrase, and your original concern seems to me only to be that that paraphrase doesn't capture the sectarianism of the First Vision, and you think that's an unfair manipulation on the part of Latter-day Saints. It's basically the argument that if the Church were really honest, it would make sure to highlight all the bad things its done in all its literature.

[LeSellers]

The First Vision story says that Christ described the churches as all being wrong,

This one you portrayed correctly, except it was "sects", not "churches".

their creeds as an abomination,

Right here, too.

the professors of those creeds as people whose hearts were far from him. Thus, he supposedly criticized the institutions, their teachings, and their adherents. That would appear to indicate that he was pretty disgusted with the churches.

[Emphasis added]

But here you blow it totally.

19 I was answered that I must join none of [the sects], for they were all wrong; and the Personage who addressed me said that all their creeds were an abomination in his sight; that those professors were all corrupt; that: “they draw near to me with their lips, but their hearts are far from me, they teach for doctrines the commandments of men, having a form of godliness, but they deny the power thereof.”

You have said here, and elsewhere, that "those professors" are those professing the creeds, but this is not what the words Joseph recorded actually say. "Those professors" are a specific group, restricted to whatever the antecedent of "those" is. So, we need merely identify that antecedent and your position becomes untenable: "those professors" are the ones Joseph mentioned in the narrative. It is the group (Methodists, Presbyterians, and so on, who were striving for converts in upstate New York, in the period leading up to the 1820 Vision. It is not just anyone who believes or professes the creed, as you falsely claim above.

Satan, in the Garden of Eden, told Eve two things. "Ye shall not surely die" and "your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil." The first was a lie. The second was the truth (in spite of many Evangelicals' claiming it to be a lie as well—Gen 3:22a And the Lord God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil). Yet, in spite of his telling the truth half the time (in this instance), he is still the "father of all lies", is he not?

Lehi

Edited October 21, 2011 by LeSellers

[maklelan]

It seems like the exact words Christ used would be an important part of the revelation that should NOT be summarized, changed or altered.

Why does it seem this way?

Is that what Christ said or not?

I doubt it's word for word. It was recorded well after the fact, and it is a paraphrase itself. I don't think that means much, though.

If you don't believe that Joseph Smith recorded exactly what Christ said to him, then one has to ask "What kind of prophet was Joseph Smith?"

And one has to answer, "a human one."

Or perhaps other prophets also did not write exactly what Christ revealed to them as well.

Absolutely.

Does the term abomination does not really mean anything to be concerned about? Is everyone ok with glossing over all the other times that God has called something abominable?

I know lots of people who are ok with glossing over the genocide commanded by God in the Bible, or the fact that the person who murders Babylonian infants will be blessed, or the fact that Christ said to give all your money to charity in order to be saved, or that you should gouge out your eye if it causes you to sin, or even that only those who do God's will will be saved. I think it's silly that people insist on taking rhetoric literally in some places and not in others.

Edited October 21, 2011 by maklelan

[maklelan]

EDIT: duplicate post

Edited October 21, 2011 by maklelan

[Rob Bowman]

Lehi,

You wrote:

This one you portrayed correctly, except it was "sects", not "churches".

Yes, sects is the word that Joseph used. It strikes me as funny that you would feel this to be important enough to mention in contrast to the far more substantial differences between the canonical account and the video we are discussing. Oh, and by the way, as I pointed out in my opening post, the video also used the word churches in place of the word sects.

You wrote:

Right here, too.

I'm doing pretty well so far, it seems.

But here you blow it totally.

You have said here, and elsewhere, that "those professors" are those professing the creeds, but this is not what the words Joseph recorded actually say. "Those professors" are a specific group, restricted to whatever the antecedent of "those" is. So, we need merely identify that antecedent and your position becomes untenable: "those professors" are the ones Joseph mentioned in the narrative. It is the group (Methodists, Presbyterians, and so on, who were striving for converts in upstate New York, in the period leading up to the 1820 Vision. It is not just anyone who believes or professes the creed, as you falsely claim above.

Let's look at the passage, shall we?

Joseph Smith--History 1:18-19

18 My object in going to inquire of the Lord was to know which of all the sects was right, that I might know which to join. No sooner, therefore, did I get possession of myself, so as to be able to speak, than I asked the Personages who stood above me in the light, which of all the sects was right (for at this time it had never entered into my heart that all were wrong)—and which I should join.

19 I was answered that I must join none of them, for they were all wrong; and the Personage who addressed me said that all their creeds were an abomination in his sight; that those professors were all corrupt; that: “they draw near to me with their lips, but their hearts are far from me, they teach for doctrines the commandments of men, having a form of godliness, but they deny the power thereof.”

In context, Joseph is not asking which of the local congregations in the Palmyra area or in "upstate New York" to join. He is asking "which of all the sects" to join. The third-person references throughout the answer Joseph says he got from Christ -- "them," "they," "their," "those" -- all refer to "all the sects." In context, then, "those professors" is synonymous with "all the sects," with the focus on the people who comprise the sects (the "professors"). the term professors in this context refers to people who profess a religion or its doctrines (see 1:22, 75), encapsulated, of course, for traditional Christians in the creeds.

Nothing in the context limits this answer to the sects or professors as they existed in upstate New York. The whole point of this passage in LDS history and teaching is that it functions as the premise of the Restoration. If Christ's reported words here did not apply to all Christian churches throughout the world then there is no basis for a Restoration in this passage. If there were sects or professors elsewhere who were not wrong, whose creeds were not an abomination, whose hearts were not far from God, then Joseph would have needed only to make contact with them and join them. For example, if there were such good churches or sects in Brooklyn or Philadelphia or Boston, Joseph could have traveled to the right place, met up with the faithful church there, and become part of it, taking its teachings and spirit with him back to Palmyra. Of course, nothing like that happened. The point of this part of the story is that no true church existed anywhere on the earth, necessitating the Restoration that Joseph claimed began formally ten years later.