04-09-2007, 04:39 PM | #31 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 1,431
|
Quote:
Still, I think I agree with your overall point about the shady nature of the talk relative to mainstream LDS doctrine. |
|
04-09-2007, 04:42 PM | #32 |
Senior Member
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Between Iraq and a hard place
Posts: 7,569
|
I saw Mormon Red Death's comment about this being part of Catholic teachings and presumed this must have been part of the Apocrypha, as opposed to merely being apocryphal.
|
04-09-2007, 04:43 PM | #33 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 6,177
|
Quote:
I mostly agree with your take on apocrypha. The way Holland used it in conference would be significantly different than someone using it to fundamentally alter a scripture story we're already familiar with. |
|
04-09-2007, 04:46 PM | #34 | |
Active LDS Ute Fan
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Nantucket : )
Posts: 2,566
|
Quote:
__________________
"It's not like we played the school of the blind out there." - Brian Johnson. |
|
04-09-2007, 05:03 PM | #35 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 6,177
|
Quote:
"He then proceeded to talk about the 7 Demons that overtook mary during the time of the crucifixion and ressurection of Jesus. The culmination of this and the ridding of the Demons was when Jesus found Mary at the seplecure and we know the famous lines of scripture that follow. " as the inaccurate part. The scriptures make a vague reference to Mary Magdalene in Luke 8:2 as one who was possessed of devils. Luke 8:2 And certain women, which had been healed of evil spirits and infirmities, Mary called Magdalene, out of whom went seven devils, Then another reference in Mark at the sepulcher. Mark 16:9 Now when Jesus was risen early the first day of the week, he appeared first to Mary Magdalene, out of whom he had cast seven devils. My understanding (which may be off because it has come in the last hour searching on this because it's interesting to me) is that these are the only two references to Mary's seven demons, and that they were healed/exorcised much earlier and were not present and had nothing to do with the crucifixion. That inaccuracy was what led to the acrophya reference. |
|
Bookmarks |
|
|