LDS The Infallibility of the Prophets

[BigDaddy4]

The Church Of Jesus Christ Of Latter Day Saints is NOT based on doubt.

Joseph Smith didn't have any doubts when he went into the grove to pray? Interesting. That's where your religion started.

That being said there are mistakes and contradictions in the Bible. That is a proven fact.

There are no contradictions or mistakes that fundamentally change the Bible message the way the LDS church has with your false doctrine.

And we do have that disclaimer for the Book of Mormon:

(Book of Mormon | Preface Title Page:2)

And now, if there are faults they are the mistakes of men; wherefore, condemn not the things of God, that ye may be found spotless at the judgment–seat of Christ.

Your "disclaimer" for the BOM is not the same as for the Bible. JS himself said he could not proceed with the BOM "translation" unless he got the words exactly correct. That thousands of mistakes have been found only show that he is not a prophet. Those mistakes cannot be blamed on "mistakes of men". Those are only his mistakes and his alone.

Books written by men do have mistakes. If you do not believe the apostasy happened then all protestant religions must be false because they are break offs from the Catholic church. Besides there was an apostasy:

I know a couple of CF posters who would have issues with your "break offs from the Catholic church" comment. And they can (and have) demonstrated that any alleged "apostasy" is blatantly false. You, and your church, continue to bear false witness and completely ignore historical facts by repeating that mantra in order to justify your false prophets "restoration".

 

[Peter1000]

This is a double pronged discussion, because, of course, I'm looking for an explanation from someone LDS. But regarding the second prong dealing with my humility, I don't mind anyone responding.

So, I am troubled by the notion of prophets and general authorities being excused for now disavowed doctrine, like polygamy and the ban of the priesthood for black men, because they are supposedly not perfect and make mistakes, just like anyone. We are told directly that those who might lead us astray are removed from their post before they have a chance to do so.

"The Lord will never permit me or any other man who stands as President of this Church to lead you astray. It is not in the programme. It is not in the mind of God. If I were to attempt that, the Lord would remove me out of my place, and so He will any other man who attempts to lead the children of men astray from the oracles of God and from their duty."

Okay, what about black men and the priesthood? What about the doctrine of the curse of black skin on those who are wicked? Is that really the mind of God? Why change it then? And if it is merely a matter of innocence versus deliberate nefarious motives, then how is an LDS prophet any different than a minister from any other Christian religion? If an LDS prophet means well and has a will to serve God, but mistakenly preaches doctrine that is contrary to the will of the Lord, what is the point of having him? Prophet isn't a fancy word for preacher; it means something specific. And if I cannot trust a prophet or apostle to lead me in 100% the ways of the Lord with everything he says(because he speaks for the Lord, right?), then why not be a Baptist or a Methodist or a Catholic? They're all leading by their own methods of inspiration and a desire to serve Christ, no?

One big issue I have is with humility. Because I believe in it. I believe it is good to be humble and gracious(as opposed to arrogant and selfish). While in the church, I believed in the concept of us being Hands of the Lord, that if we were humble enough to be led, He would direct our doings in this life(through opportunities and the impressions of other people) to the path we needed to walk for our greatest growth and service and that of others. I also believe, it is okay not to have 100% of the answers or the full picture beforehand. Sometimes you don't understand at the current moment "why" but later in life, you look back at the picture and things suddenly make sense. I was right where I was supposed to be and He knew the whole time.

So, in addition to struggling with the imperfection of church leaders ultimately equating to their unworthiness to lead others to righteousness, I also struggle with doubts about the concept of obedience and humility. It is a real issue to try and understand what I want from piety and reconciling my own God-given intellect and right to judge on moral grounds. Am I being led astray by my own pride? Do I want all of the answers(why polygamy then not polygamy? Why racist priesthood doctrine? Why seer stone yet gold plates?)? Or is it okay for me to demand moral consistency from an Almighty?

I apologize if this is not he right place to go for this discussion. Ex-Mormon forums have rules against preaching/theistic talk and LDS forums don't allow debate or any negativity about the church or its leaders. I am alone and conflicted and I need to talk these things out.

Plural marriage was ordained of God to build up a people unto Him in less time than it usually takes.

The ban on blacks receiving the priesthood was given by God until the time that He saw fit to give all men the right to hold the priesthood.

It has now been 42 years since that announcement. Thousands of the black community now have the priesthood, and are happy.

The black community was also happy with the statement that "black lives matter", by Pres. Oaks. He does not believe in the blm movement, but that "black lives matter".
As we all do.

 

[He is the way]

My impression from your response is that the LDS president does say which commandments get a lot of airtime in which get little or none.

I don't know what role Peter plays in LDS thought compared to the president, but he went against the commandments of love. Barnabas was led astray by his actions. Unless Peter remained silent at this time, Barnabas was led astray by his words as well.

I don't believe that eating with the gentiles went against the commandments of LOVE.

 

[He is the way]

Do you mean that we no longer follow the law of Moses, but instead we follow the laws contained in The sermon on the Mount?

Jesus fulfilled the law of Moses and gave us the higher law on the sermon on the mount. He also taught us what the two great commandments are and how we should pray.

 

[He is the way]

Yes, Acts 10 and 11 is great! It talks about how Peter went to a gentile house and the holy Spirit fell on the people there. This opened up the minds of the Jewish Christians of the time to the idea that Gentiles could become Christians without first converting to Judaism.

In your view, what is the misunderstanding and who is it between?

The misunderstanding was between Paul with Peter and Barnabas.

Eating with the gentiles was not a bad thing, nor did it cause Peter of Barnabas to fall away or change God's word. God's word is for everyone.

 

[Peter1000]

Joseph Smith didn't have any doubts when he went into the grove to pray? Interesting. That's where your religion started.

There are no contradictions or mistakes that fundamentally change the Bible message the way the LDS church has with your false doctrine.

Your "disclaimer" for the BOM is not the same as for the Bible. JS himself said he could not proceed with the BOM "translation" unless he got the words exactly correct. That thousands of mistakes have been found only show that he is not a prophet. Those mistakes cannot be blamed on "mistakes of men". Those are only his mistakes and his alone.



I know a couple of CF posters who would have issues with your "break offs from the Catholic church" comment. And they can (and have) demonstrated that any alleged "apostasy" is blatantly false. You, and your church, continue to bear false witness and completely ignore historical facts by repeating that mantra in order to justify your false prophets "restoration".

Martin Luther, the father of the "reformation" said that Rome was the home of "satan". That sounds even worse than just an apostacy.

Did Martin Luther and others not "break off" from the Catholic faith?
What would you call it?

Isn't it interesting that none of the churches had the name of Jesus Christ in the name they chose for their church. Catholic (universal), Orthodox (the right interpretation or truth), Lutheran, Baptist, Church of England, Presbyterians, Seventh day Adventists, etc. Not until the 19th century was there a church that had Jesus the title and that was the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. There were a couple of small churches in the 19th century that had Jesus or Christ in its name.

At any event, Martin Luther thought that clearly 1/2 of Christendom was led by "satan" from his home in Rome, and this takes us right into the guts of apostacy.

 

[He is the way]

Joseph Smith didn't have any doubts when he went into the grove to pray? Interesting. That's where your religion started.

He had questions, not doubts:
(New Testament | James 1:5 - 6)

5 If any of you lack wisdom, let him ask of God, that giveth to all men liberally, and upbraideth not; and it shall be given him.
6 But let him ask in faith, nothing wavering. For he that wavereth is like a wave of the sea driven with the wind and tossed.

There are no contradictions or mistakes that fundamentally change the Bible message the way the LDS church has with your false doctrine.

Here is a contradiction:
Does God repent?

(Old Testament | Numbers 23:19)

19 God is not a man, that he should lie; neither the son of man, that he should repent: hath he said, and shall he not do it? or hath he spoken, and shall he not make it good?

(Old Testament | Jonah 3:9 - 10)

9 Who can tell if God will turn and repent, and turn away from his fierce anger, that we perish not?
10 ¶ And God saw their works, that they turned from their evil way; and God repented of the evil, that he had said that he would do unto them; and he did it not.

Do fouls have four legs? Do insects have four feet?

(Old Testament | Leviticus 11:20 - 23)

20 All fowls that creep, going upon all four, shall be an abomination unto you.
21 Yet these may ye eat of every flying creeping thing that goeth upon all four, which have legs above their feet, to leap withal upon the earth;
22 Even these of them ye may eat; the locust after his kind, and the bald locust after his kind, and the beetle after his kind, and the grasshopper after his kind.
23 But all other flying creeping things, which have four feet, shall be an abomination unto you.

Your "disclaimer" for the BOM is not the same as for the Bible. JS himself said he could not proceed with the BOM "translation" unless he got the words exactly correct. That thousands of mistakes have been found only show that he is not a prophet. Those mistakes cannot be blamed on "mistakes of men". Those are only his mistakes and his alone.

Joseph Smith did get the words correct just as they were written by the men who wrote the Book of Mormon, mistakes and all. There were many men who wrote the Book of Mormon.

I know a couple of CF posters who would have issues with your "break offs from the Catholic church" comment. And they can (and have) demonstrated that any alleged "apostasy" is blatantly false. You, and your church, continue to bear false witness and completely ignore historical facts by repeating that mantra in order to justify your false prophets "restoration".

My post refers to Protestants. The scripture I posted about the apostasy is true.

 

[dzheremi]

Plural marriage was ordained of God to build up a people unto Him in less time than it usually takes.

And your god is bound by human notions of time and generation why, exactly?

Just curious, since God in Christianity did all kinds of things that show that this is not the case for Him, whether we're talking about the incarnation of Christ our Lord Who was born of the Virgin Mary, or Christ's reminder that God can raise up children unto Abraham from stones if He wishes to, etc.

The ban on blacks receiving the priesthood was given by God until the time that He saw fit to give all men the right to hold the priesthood.

If Mormonism is as Christian as its partisans claim it to be, then how come there was never such a ban on black Africans being priests in types of Christianity that maintain a sacerdotal priesthood, like Orthodoxy and Roman Catholicism? Why wouldn't God have made known His command to all people, as He did with regard to sexual immorality (e.g., not coveting another man's wife wasn't just a command for people of a certain color or background, even though JS apparently forgot about that while he was busy marrying other people's wives) or other things? Seems really suspicious.

HH Abune Matewos X, patriarch and bishop of the Ethiopian Orthodox Church 1899-1926 (possibly the first Ethiopian patriarch to be photographed?)

Fr. Abdelmasih El Habashi (in his native language, Abba Gabra Kristos), the Ethiopian monastic hermit of Wadi El Natroun in Egypt, 1898-1973

And from those times until today, it's still the same:

December 3, 2019: HG Bishop Eklimindos of Nasr City (Cairo) ordained 22 Sudanese to the rank of Epsaltis (cantors). Note the black man in the very back to the left of HG, wearing the mitre. The mitre is what priests wear in the Coptic Orthodox Church (not the Pope, like in RC-ism), so that's a black priest, presumably also from the Sudanese population in Egypt. (There is a corresponding Egyptian Coptic population in Sudan, in addition to mixed Egyptian/Sudanese Copts due to intermarriage between these two ancient Christian communities; the first Coptic bishop to ever serve in the United States, HG Bishop Karas, was actually from Sudan.)

Again, are we really supposed to believe that the Christian God Who has had no problem with having black everything forever (the above are just what I could find modern photographs of, so as to not rely on icons or paintings which could conceivably show the influence of local art styles and hence be argued against as not really depicting black people) suddenly decided to reveal to JS or Brigham Young -- notably not to anyone actually from a preexisting black Church like those of Ethiopia, Eritrea, Sudan, arguably Egypt, etc. -- that He doesn't want black people, who HE created, to be priests in His Church? And this based on their supposed 'curse' for not being more valiant in the 'pre-earth life' -- two other things He never revealed to anyone before JS in the at the time 1,800 year history of Christianity?

That's a lot to expect people to believe without a lot of backing, to put it politely

It has now been 42 years since that announcement. Thousands of the black community now have the priesthood, and are happy.

Yeah, people are generally happier when you stop openly discriminating against them. Something tells me that if this was 1977 or any other time before the change, you'd be compelled to be saying that black Mormons are happy not having the priesthood, since after all, they too were taught that it was from God that things were like this.

 

[BigDaddy4]

Martin Luther, the father of the "reformation" said that Rome was the home of "satan". That sounds even worse than just an apostacy.

A disagreeing opinion does not an apostasy make.

Did Martin Luther and others not "break off" from the Catholic faith?
What would you call it?

Was the Catholic faith the only option back then? You've failed church history lessons with @dzheremi so I don't expect you to know that answer.

Isn't it interesting that none of the churches had the name of Jesus Christ in the name they chose for their church. Catholic (universal), Orthodox (the right interpretation or truth), Lutheran, Baptist, Church of England, Presbyterians, Seventh day Adventists, etc. Not until the 19th century was there a church that had Jesus the title and that was the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. There were a couple of small churches in the 19th century that had Jesus or Christ in its name.

Isn't it interesting that none of the churches mentioned in the New Testament have the name of Jesus Christ in their name? Obviously not a determining factor in which is the "true" church. In fact, I would say that certain groups who invoke the name of Jesus Christ in their name are just trying to put lipstick on a pig.

At any event, Martin Luther thought that clearly 1/2 of Christendom was led by "satan" from his home in Rome, and this takes us right into the guts of apostacy.

Luther disagreeing with some of the practices of Rome does not mean that an apostacy occurred. Christianity existed outside of Rome's influence. People sin. People in high places sin. God is all about repentance and forgiveness. Absolutely does not mean a "great apostasy" occurred that needed a false prophet to pretend to restore.

 

[BigDaddy4]

He had questions, not doubts:

You should look up the definition of doubt sometime.

Here is a contradiction:

None of which fundamentally effect effect the message of Christ.

Joseph Smith did get the words correct just as they were written by the men who wrote the Book of Mormon, mistakes and all. There were many men who wrote the Book of Mormon.

An assertion you have no proof to back up. You have no plates or even proof of "Reformed Egyptian" even existing. There are punctuation errors galore. Ancient languages like Hebrew and Egyptian (from which "Reformed Egyptian", if it ever existed, would most likely resemble) did not use punctuation. Your ignorance of history makes your excuses fall flat.

My post refers to Protestants. The scripture I posted about the apostasy is true.

Again, Protestants are not the entirety of Christiandom. Regardless, a "great apostasy" as defined by the LDS church has not occurred.

 

[dzheremi]

My post refers to Protestants. The scripture I posted about the apostasy is true.

So then the "apostasy" that Mormonism is built upon is the Protestant Reformation, and hence does not predate the early 16th century?

I guess there's a way in which that can be true (in the strictly temporal sense that there wouldn't have been Presbyterians, et al. for JS to be exposed to as a youth and subsequently become confused by if there hadn't earlier been the Protestant Reformation which to varying degrees led to all of these traditions existing in the first place), but in another, much more direct way, that's both a horrible insult to the Protestants here and everywhere and a bizarrely pro-Roman Catholic (or at least RC-compliant) argument to be making, which seems to suggest that you still shouldn't be Mormon, since y'know, the RCC itself never went anywhere, and even had its own counterreformation to address some of the issues brought up by Luther et al.

So how do you want it: Do you want to be wrong according to everybody, or everybody but Rome? (But please note that Rome still wouldn't therefore agree with Mormonism, as they've made clear by the fact that they stopped accepting Mormon baptisms some years ago after learning more about Mormonism's distinctly non-Christian theology; this is you cribbing whatever semblance of Christian history you have from them without realizing it, not them agreeing with Mormonism doctrinally without realizing it, since they don't.)

Or do you want to maybe widen your view in a manner that is commensurate with the very wide application of the idea of the 'apostasy', which we are told by Mormons affected the entire world such that the Church was corrupted and taken from the Earth to be restored later by JS? As it is, you are not arguing as though you actually believe this.

 

[He is the way]

You should look up the definition of doubt sometime.

doubt

noun

1. a feeling of uncertainty or lack of conviction.
   "some doubt has been cast upon the authenticity of this account"
   
   Similar:
   uncertainty
   
   lack of certainty
   unsureness
   indecision
   wavering
   verb

1. 1.
   feel uncertain about.
   "I doubt my ability to do the job"
2. ARCHAIC
   fear; be afraid.
   "I doubt not your contradictions"

Joseph Smith did not waver, he had faith that his prayer would be answered. He was not afraid or uncertain and he had no lack of conviction or indecision.

None of which fundamentally effect effect the message of Christ.

There are some that do:

(Old Testament | Genesis 32:30)

30 And Jacob called the name of the place Peniel: for I have seen God face to face, and my life is preserved.

(Old Testament | Exodus 33:11)

11 And the LORD spake unto Moses face to face, as a man speaketh unto his friend. And he turned again into the camp: but his servant Joshua, the son of Nun, a young man, departed not out of the tabernacle.

(New Testament | John 1:18)

18 No man hath seen God at any time; the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him.

John 1:18 was translated wrong.

An assertion you have no proof to back up. You have no plates or even proof of "Reformed Egyptian" even existing. There are punctuation errors galore. Ancient languages like Hebrew and Egyptian (from which "Reformed Egyptian", if it ever existed, would most likely resemble) did not use punctuation. Your ignorance of history makes your excuses fall flat.

We have the Book of Mormon, that is the proof.

Again, Protestants are not the entirety of Christiandom. Regardless, a "great apostasy" as defined by the LDS church has not occurred.

I didn't say that Protestants were the only Christians. The scripture I posted shows that there was an apostacy.

 

[He is the way]

So then the "apostasy" that Mormonism is built upon is the Protestant Reformation, and hence does not predate the early 16th century?

I guess there's a way in which that can be true (in the strictly temporal sense that there wouldn't have been Presbyterians, et al. for JS to be exposed to as a youth and subsequently become confused by if there hadn't earlier been the Protestant Reformation which to varying degrees led to all of these traditions existing in the first place), but in another, much more direct way, that's both a horrible insult to the Protestants here and everywhere and a bizarrely pro-Roman Catholic (or at least RC-compliant) argument to be making, which seems to suggest that you still shouldn't be Mormon, since y'know, the RCC itself never went anywhere, and even had its own counterreformation to address some of the issues brought up by Luther et al.

So how do you want it: Do you want to be wrong according to everybody, or everybody but Rome? (But please note that Rome still wouldn't therefore agree with Mormonism, as they've made clear by the fact that they stopped accepting Mormon baptisms some years ago after learning more about Mormonism's distinctly non-Christian theology; this is you cribbing whatever semblance of Christian history you have from them without realizing it, not them agreeing with Mormonism doctrinally without realizing it, since they don't.)

Or do you want to maybe widen your view in a manner that is commensurate with the very wide application of the idea of the 'apostasy', which we are told by Mormons affected the entire world such that the Church was corrupted and taken from the Earth to be restored later by JS? As it is, you are not arguing as though you actually believe this.

This scripture is indeed about the apostasy:

(New Testament | Acts 20:28 - 31)

28 ¶ Take heed therefore unto yourselves, and to all the flock, over the which the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers, to feed the church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood.
29 For I know this, that after my departing shall grievous wolves enter in among you, not sparing the flock.
30 Also of your own selves shall men arise, speaking perverse things, to draw away disciples after them.
31 Therefore watch, and remember, that by the space of three years I ceased not to warn every one night and day with tears.

Due to this the gospel and the priesthood had to be restored.

 

[Leaf473]

I don't believe that eating with the gentiles went against the commandments of LOVE.

That's correct! It wasn't eating with the Gentiles that went against the commandments of Love.

It was his later withdrawing from the Gentiles!

 

[Leaf473]

Jesus fulfilled the law of Moses and gave us the higher law on the sermon on the mount. He also taught us what the two great commandments are and how we should pray.

That sounds great, to live by the sermon on the mount!

I think where I differ from LDS teaching is when certain rules are added like give at least a certain exact amount to the church, and give it to the bishop.

 

[Leaf473]

The misunderstanding was between Paul with Peter and Barnabas.

Eating with the gentiles was not a bad thing, nor did it cause Peter of Barnabas to fall away or change God's word. God's word is for everyone.

In your view, what was the misunderstanding between Paul and Peter?

You are correct that eating with Gentiles is not a bad thing. That's not what Paul is concerned about. The issue arises when Peter stops eating with the Gentiles.

 

[He is the way]

That sounds great, to live by the sermon on the mount!

I think where I differ from LDS teaching is when certain rules are added like give at least a certain exact amount to the church, and give it to the bishop.

It is the same historic amount:
(Old Testament | Genesis 14:20)

20 And blessed be the most high God, which hath delivered thine enemies into thy hand. And he gave him tithes of all.

(Old Testament | Genesis 28:22)

22 And this stone, which I have set for a pillar, shall be God's house: and of all that thou shalt give me I will surely give the tenth unto thee.

(Book of Mormon | Alma 13:15)

15 And it was this same Melchizedek to whom Abraham paid tithes; yea, even our father Abraham paid tithes of one–tenth part of all he possessed.

It goes into the church's financial account.

 

[He is the way]

In your view, what was the misunderstanding between Paul and Peter?

You are correct that eating with Gentiles is not a bad thing. That's not what Paul is concerned about. The issue arises when Peter stops eating with the Gentiles.

Okay so Peter wasn't perfect.

 

[dzheremi]

This scripture is indeed about the apostasy:

(New Testament | Acts 20:28 - 31)

28 ¶ Take heed therefore unto yourselves, and to all the flock, over the which the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers, to feed the church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood.
29 For I know this, that after my departing shall grievous wolves enter in among you, not sparing the flock.
30 Also of your own selves shall men arise, speaking perverse things, to draw away disciples after them.
31 Therefore watch, and remember, that by the space of three years I ceased not to warn every one night and day with tears.

Due to this the gospel and the priesthood had to be restored.

This did not answer or even address my question, which followed from your answer to BigDaddy4 that you were talking about Protestants in particular.

I assume that the entire point of bringing up that there's more to Christianity than just Protestants or just the Reformation is to attempt to get you to address all the ways your argument does not fit with the full scope of Christian history (the implication being that the LDS/Mormonism needs to greatly scale back its claims about total, worldwide apostasy if you mean to only address Protestants, since Protestants and Protestantism are in no way the worldwide total of Christianity, so anything that only addresses them or the Protestant Reformation and Catholicism is going to fall short about 282 million people -- roughly 62 million Oriental Orthodox and 220 million Eastern Orthodox, plus maybe half a million Nestorians/Church of the East people (including their offshoot, the Ancient Church of the East). Also in some sense at least a few of the Eastern Catholic Churches -- namely the Maronites and possibly the Italo-Albanians -- could be described as their own thing, in the sense that these are the two churches in communion with Rome that pretty indisputably united with Rome before the Reformation even happened (the Maronites of Syria and Lebanon in large part during the Crusades of the 12th century, and the Albanians having come to Italy as a result of Muslim persecutions in the 15th century, and uniting with Rome at the Council of Florence in 1431-1449; keep in mind that the Protestant Reformation began only in 1517; the other Eastern Catholic churches are newer/after 1517). This would add another approximately 3.5 million (Maronites) and 160,000 (Italo-Albanian Catholics).

This is the problem with Mormons' aversion to learning the history of Christianity (to say nothing of whether or not you agree with the way it worked out, which is irrelevant): since Mormonism was born entirely within an American 19th century Protestant context, and refuses to learn f anything else for its own sake, it can't really realistically claim to address anything other or more than that, yet at the same time it makes these grandiose claims about the entire world being in apostasy and the Church being taken from the earth to be restored later via JS and all this stuff, and absolutely none of it is based in reality. It is essentially JS' reaction to his surroundings and the confusion that he personally felt (you know the story, where he goes out into the grove to pray about which church he should join), but projected onto the entire world, as though the average believer in Armenia, Ethiopia, Greece, Rome, Germany, etc. -- all of whom are just following their respective churches as they have for centuries both before and after JS (as he is in no way a figure of importance in any Christian tradition) -- thereby shares in JS' confusion and vision of 'restoration'. That doesn't make for a convincing story. "Joseph Smith doesn't know what's going on outside of his home region" is not a convincing basis for some modern-day prophesying, let alone passing judgment on literally every Christian church on the planet.

When or if Mormons ever start opening up history books not printed by BYU or some other propaganda arm of the Mormon religion, I guarantee you interesting things will start happening. Worthwhile things...long overdue things. May God grant you the intellectual fortitude to learn and reason for yourself, not for the sake of your religion and its leaders.

 

[BigDaddy4]

doubt

noun

1. a feeling of uncertainty or lack of conviction.
   "some doubt has been cast upon the authenticity of this account"
   
   Similar:
   uncertainty
   
   lack of certainty
   unsureness
   indecision
   wavering
   verb

1. 1.
   feel uncertain about.
   "I doubt my ability to do the job"
2. ARCHAIC
   fear; be afraid.
   "I doubt not your contradictions"

Joseph Smith did not waver, he had faith that his prayer would be answered. He was not afraid or uncertain and he had no lack of conviction or indecision.

Interesting re-write of JS history. He didn't know who was right or wrong, he "must either remain in darkness and confusion", etc. See his history verses 8-13 where his expresses "uncertainty", "indecision", "unsureness", etc. (your definition).

There are some that do:
...
John 1:18 was translated wrong.

Only to those who do not understand Scripture - i.e., the LDS church and its [false] prophets.

We have the Book of Mormon, that is the proof.

Your baseless statement is not proof. I already pointed out why. Please re-read my comment that you responded to and provide an actual response and not your testimony, if possible,

I didn't say that Protestants were the only Christians. The scripture I posted shows that there was an apostacy.

All your scripture posting shows is that you do not understand scripture in context and you are willing to continue misuse it to justify your misguided religion. It does NOT show or support any "great apostasy" as your church teaches. So attempting to show a partial apostasy is just wasted effort. Posts 211 and 219 by dzheremi points that out.