I may be wrong but I think that the word ‘immaculate’ is basically a catholic word coming from Saint Bernedette. I don’t believe that other religious faiths use it at all. But I could be mistaken on this. I also think that most people have never heard of this word.
I don’t know if I would decribe thier doctrines as ludicrous. I think that actual history has more to do with how people live their lives. When a person looks into Utah history and the cultural norms of the Mormons who lived in the 19th and 20th century,we can see actual history. I don’t think actual history can be based on words but rather on actions of human beings.
lol…so let me get this straight…when your lds “prophets” speak, if you dislike what they say, or if what they say is later disproven, you can say it was never a teaching?
Not true. The term existed before Bernadette said it. What made Bernadette saying it so special was that she could have never term before in her background.
ok…how would you define the doctrine of polygamy? the black priesthood doctrine? the doctrine that your god was once a sinful man? The Blood Oath Doctrine?
Just stating to read this thread…
polygamy was against the law…it was not a cultural norm. Actual history then is Brigham Young and Joseph Smith breaking the law multiple times and in the case of JS - 34 wives and he committed adultery over what, ten times? This is your prophet? A law breaker and adulterer?
history is not either/or it’s definitely both and more. If we even look at a woman with a lustful heart, we have committed adultery. So says the bible. Jesus will judge us based not only on our actions, but our words and what is in our hearts. All are actual history from a Christian perspective. And, no, Joseph Smith will not judge us…only Jesus.
That certainly was true when I was LDS.
Actually, “immaculate” is a common word used in the English language, meaning, basically, “spotlessly clean”. It’s common to hear people say something like “wow, her office is immaculate!”, or “look at the job you did cleaning the kitchen! it’s immaculate!”. I’m surprised you think that most people have never heard of the word.
Of course the Journal of Discourses contains LDS teachings. Do you know what the JoD is? It contains various talks given by LDS leaders, apparently from 1851-1877, many of which occurred during Church General Conferences, just like the talks you listen to and can read in the Ensign these days. The JoD contains some of what various prophets and apostles taught members during that time frame. Apostle George Q. Cannon says in the preface to the 8th volume-"The Journal of Discourses deservedly ranks as one of the standard works of the Church, and every rightminded Saint will certainly welcome with joy every Number as it comes forth from the press as an additional reflector of ‘the light that shines from Zion’s hill.’"
What point are you making?
In other words, no documentation, no
Nonsense, to begin with words are what are used to tell of the actions of human beings. Secondly you can not divorce human beings actions from their words. Words are what we humans use to express and share our beliefs, hopes, fears, dreams and ideals. These underlying beliefs and ideals, hopes and fears, are what motivates human actions and to say history should ignore the words of the participants in history is idiotic.
i don’t see the Mormons being disrespectful of the Virgin Mary. What was said in the past is the past. The present is now important. This is why I see action in people and not in words. I see no relevance in cherry picking a quotation and using it to make a point about an entire religious faith. Mormons seem respectful of the Virgin Mary.
“What was said in the past is the past,” meaning any LDS doctrine doesn’t have to be true.
i see no relevance in cherry picking a quotation from over a hundred years ago to make a point today unless of course that hundred year old quotation is still valid. A valid argument would take a modern approach by discussing the present beliefs and not what was said over a hundred years ago by someone.Seriously? Bringing up what the LDS Church teaches makes an irrelevant argument?
What then would you consider a valid argument? NOTHING, because you will always
“move the goalpost” !!!
First off, Mormonism has only been around not even a full 200 years yet, so don’t speak as though we use quotes
