Justice

Any exclusions made by the LDS Church were not racial. There were exclusions based on ancestory and tribal realtions. That skin color played a part is but a result of the way children are born. It wasn't "because of skin color."

The Kingdom of God or the Kingdom of Heaven encompasses all 3 kingdoms of glory. But, when trying to explain how we believe, the Celestial Kingdom is like your belief in heaven. Christ taught there are man mansions in "heaven." We also believe there are 3 degrees within the Celestial Kingdom itself. So, when the Bible speaks of these kingdoms its sometimes hard to know which they are referring to. "How we get it" is from modern revelation. The belief can be supported in the Bible, but not fully taught or understood.

I have a book called the Isaiah Chapters. It goes through some significant discoveries in the Isaiah chapters in the Book of Mormon. I highly recommend it. Remember, the Book of Mormon was not translated by a man from language to language using his knowledge of the languages.

When?

...changes that have been made in the Bible we have today, not in Nephi's rendition of them.

Yeah, this is about the 10th time it's been found.

I have noticed that phrase as well, and have given it some study and thought. I am leaning toward the interpretation that it's not saying the Aaronic Priesthood will be taken from the earth when the sons of Levi make that offering. There will always be a need for baptism, and the Aaronic Priesthood holds the keys of that ordinance. I think it is simply using that event to prophecy that it will happen, and say it will be here at least until that happens. Once that happens, the prophecy is fulfilled, but the Aaronic Priesthood will continue. That's how I understand it anyway. Good question.

Two weeks ago I was asked to give a talk on the blessings that come through the sacrifice of fasting. As I studied I found the story in the Old Testament (2 Samuel) where David fasted for his first child when it was taken ill. He fasted for 7 days that the child might live. The child did not live. When David heard that the child was dead he cleaned himself and went to the house of the Lord and worshipped. Then he ate. I've learned that we may or may not be granted the desire of our heart through fasting. The first and foremost thing we should fast for is to know the will of the Lord. If we pray and fast for something that goes against the will of the Lord it will seem our prayer and fast are not being heard or answered. At the end of the talk, I closed with this: Fasting is not a trial of going without food, as we often make it. Fasting is the prescribed method of gaining increased spirituality so we can overcome or endure trials. So, as Hemi said, if there is no purpose for our fast, then there is no fast. It is not simply a test to see if we can go without food. It is not a trial within itself. It is a sacrifice that brings greater blessings and strength to overcome particularly tough trials. Jesus taught this in the New Testament when He told His disciples that some spirits can only be cast out with prayer and fasting. This can just as easily be referring to trials. Some trials cannot be overcome or endured without prayer and fasting. As far as length of time... 24 hours is the given standard in the church. I have heard of people extending their fast a little longer, but I see no need to extend it too far. In my opinion, a better method is to wait a week and fast again, and repeat until you get your answer.

John 1: 43 is the last place that mentions a place where Jesus would be. The day following Jesus would go forth into Galilee So, Jesus was heading to Galilee. Chapter 2 starts this way, verse 1: And the third day there was a marriage in Cana of Galilee Why does a person have to get married in his home town? We know He spent some time in Galilee. OK, now you address after the wedding: In fact, the New Testament says very little, if any, about Jesus for many years of His life. To say Jesus was not married because the New Testament does not explicitly say He was is a bad argument. There were many hundreds of years where the text of the New Testament was in the hands of a corrupt church who did not want Christ to be married. It is very easy to presume many of the words of the text were altered, or removed, that may have been more clear on the matter. The fact that Jesus appeared first to Mary, even before the Father, is a clue to me, and tells me I want to look for more evidence. I see evidence in the text of the story at the wedding of Cana, if you do not then we disagree. That's all it is is a disagreement. But, you have to admit that with one small assumption, the text can be easily led that way, even if, as you say, it's not explicit. It's been a fun conversation. I hope it didn't get you too riled up.

Having said all that... this is an interesting discussion, and that's it. I do not think this has to be His wedding to make a difference. Whether or not this was Jesus' wedding doesn't change a thing for me. Whether or not Jesus was married while He lived on earth doesn't change a thing. The fact is He will be married if He is to be like the Father.

Let me go through it one last time. Mary: Tells the servants to do as Jesus asks. His mother saith unto the servants, Whatsoever he saith unto you, do it. Jesus: Tells the servants to fill the pots with water. Jesus saith unto them, Fill the waterpots with water. Servants: (fill water pots with water) And they filled them up to the brim. Jesus: Tells the servants to bare the wine to the governor of the feast. And he saith unto them, Draw out now, and bear unto the governor of the feast. Servants: (fills a cup and delivers it to the ruler of the feast) And they bare it. Governor: (Tasted the wine but did not know where it came from) When the ruler of the feast had tasted the water that was made wine, and knew not whence it was Servants: (knew where the wine came from because they were told by the person who provided it to deliver it to the governor) (but the servants which drew the water knew) OK. Summary at this point: The same servants who witnessed the water turn into wine were told by Jesus to deliver the wine to the governor of the feast. Those same servants delivered the wine to the governor. The governor did not know where the wine came from. Here is the only assumption you have to make. Here is the governor of the feast, who just tasted the wine and is curious about where the wine came from. His later statement says his curiosity is spawned because the wine was better than the wine they have drank up to that point, which was usually not the practice. So, the servants who brought the wine are right there, what's the best, most logical way for the governor to find out where the wine came from? Ask who brought it. This added text inserted at this location, which states a previously known fact, suggests that he asked the servants: (but the servants which drew the water knew) Now, watch the result very closely. The governor wanted to know where the wine came from so he could ask them a question. The text says the governor called the bridegroom. the governor of the feast called the bridegroom Notice that the governor is no longer curious about where the wine came from. The text implies he no longer desires to know where it came from. This supports the idea that he asked the servants who knew where the wine came from. The governor does not ask the bridegroom where the wine came from. The governor approaches the bridegroom as if he knows the bridegroom is the individual who provided the wine. Every man at the beginning doth set forth good wine; and when men have well drunk, then that which is worse: but thou hast kept the good wine until now. Now, you may not be willing to assume the governor asked the servants where the wine came from, but you have to see how easy it is based on the text, to assume he did. I'm still amazed you won't at least admit there's an implication or assumption in the text that the Jesus is the bridegroom. You are welcome to explicitly disagree with the assumption, but to continue to say there's not the slightest leaning toward it in the text is just being difficult, in my opinion.

mik, the tradition was that the bridegroom WAS called to the wedding feast. You can see it in the parable of the 10 virgins. But, either case, that IS a tradition that's in question, not the text itself. Either it's tradition that the bridegroom is called to the wedding feast or it's not. And the servant thing... Mary told them to do what Jesus said. I don't get this one. Mary told the servants what to do, then Jesus told the servants what to do. That makes perfect sense. There's nothing in that part of the text that suggests it wasn't Jesus' wedding. Perhaps if you explained how the servants doing what they are told is evidence it's not Jesus' wedding I can better respond. Even as such, the term "servant" is up for discussion. Were they slaves? I don't think so. Were they helpers at the wedding? I think so. There are many customs that can be found in play here at this wedding feast. But, I'm interested in his comment about how the text itself offers evidence it was not Jesus' wedding. Concentrate on the events and main characters at the wedding. How does their interation within the text show it's not His wedding?

So, Vol... forget any tradition or law related things for now, and look strictly at the text. What is it IN THE TEXT that makes you say it was not Jesus' wedding? Maybe we will have a more meaningful discussion from that perspective.

If you study the time period, much like the early history of the LDS church, there was severe persecution for Christinas to deny Christ and their religion. In a large degree, those that would not were put to death. This is how the majority of the Apostles died. It is not difficult to see that it would have been very difficult for the APostles to call new members and reorganize the Quorum. If you cut off the head the body dies.

I'll be a little more detailed this time. 5 His mother saith unto the servants, Whatsoever he saith unto you, do it. We have servants who were with Jesus and did what he said. They witnessed Jesus turn the water into wine and they knew where the wine came from. 6 And there were set there six waterpots of stone, after the manner of the purifying of the Jews, containing two or three firkins piece. 7 Jesus saith unto them, Fill the waterpots with water. And they filled them up to the brim. The servants filled the waterpots with water. They KNEW what was in the pots. 8 And he saith unto them, Draw out now, and bear unto the governor of the feast. And they bare it. The servants drew out the water and gave the water that had been turned into wine to the individual that Jesus told them to give it to. 9 When the ruler of the feast had tasted the water that was made wine, and knew not whence it was: (but the servants which drew the water knew;) the governor of the feast called the bridegroom, This same individual who the servants who were told by Jesus to give the water to did not know where the wine came from. At this point we, the readers, already know the servants knew where the wine came from. According to the story it was these same servants who filled the waterpots with water and drew out wine, and were told by Jesus to give wine to this individual. The text makes a specific parenthetic point that the servants knew where the wine came from: 1) even though we the readers already know they know, and 2) immediately after stating the ruler of the feast did not know where the wine came from. Again, the implication in the text is that the ruler didn't know, but the servants did know. A ) the same servants who witnessed Jesus turn the water into wine, and were told by Jesus to bare unto the gorernor of the feast B ) the same ruler that Jesus instructed those same servants to give to the same individual 10 And saith unto him, Every man at the beginning doth set forth good wine; and when men have well drunk, then that which is worse: but thou hast kept the good wine until now. The ruler of the feast, then presumably, would call the same person who he was told by the servants provided the wine and instructed them to give the wine to him. Like I said, the ONLY assumption you have to make is that the servants who witnessed the water being turned into wine, and who were told by Jesus to give the wine to an individual, told that individual, who the text makes specific mention was curious where the wine came from, asked or was told by the same servants who witnessed the miracle, who they got the wine from and told them to give to him. I'm telling you, it's NOT much of a stretch if you open your mind and just read the text. The only assumption you have to make is a logical one, and seems to be implied in the text by the placing of the parenthetic comment (but the servants which drew the water knew;), something we already knew and did not need repeated unless there was something more or something else the story was relating. AND, it just happens to be immediately preceded by "and knew not whence it was:" making it pretty obvious that the following statement is addressing that specific comment. It is obvious to me that the ruler did not know where the wine came from, but the servants knew, because they witnessed it, and he either asked or they volunteered what they had just witnessed. They had just witnessed a miracle! Don't you think they were dying to tell someone? Especially the ruler of the feast who, more than likely, ASKED them where they got the wine? It's written all in the text.

I don't think Jewish culture of time had 2 different weddings. Remember, they only had the Aaronic Priesthood, and did not have rights to that ordinance in the temple.

I think there is an indication in the text itself, even if you disregard everything we've discussed so far. Did you follow the story close enough to see that the ruler or governor of the feast (I don't think it's a stretch to say it was the same individual) went to the person who provided the wine to ask why he saved the good wine until the end of the feast? John 2: 8 And he [Jesus] saith unto them, Draw out now, and bear unto the governor of the feast. And they bare it. 9 When the ruler of the feast had tasted the water that was made wine, and knew not whence it was: (but the servants which drew the water knew; ) the governor of the feast called the bridegroom, 10 And saith unto him, Every man at the beginning doth set forth good wine; and when men have well drunk, then that which is worse: but thou hast kept the good wine until now. In fact, I think the text makes the implication that the governor of the feast and the ruler of the feast was the same individual. *If* the servants told the governor of the feast who provided the wine, and I think the best logical conclusion is that they did, then he called the bridegroom, as apparently the one who provided the wine. We know that Jesus is the one who provided the wine. If those assumptions are not unreasonable or illogical, which I don't believe they are, then the text itself names Jesus as the bridegroom. As I said, the background to the story adds to the evidence (Mary seemingly in charge of the food of the feast, Jesus and his followers being "called" to the wedding feast...etc.) It really isn't much of a stretch. To say the text does NOT make this implication at all, not even in a small degree, is a stretch in my mind. The implication is there. Also, it was Jewish custom for the bridegroom to provide the wine (or that's what my friend told me) making it logical that Mary went to Jesus for the wine to begin with.

I love that story every time I hear it (read it). Thank you.

No. I remember the words Jewish and History, and I think it said something about Custom or Tradition as well. But, no, not certain. Was a good read tho. My good friend, who was a Jew for 50 years, was baptized LDS later in his life. He helped me with a lot of the book. One think I remember very clearly tho, Rabbi was the title of the leader of their local synogog, and he had to be married to be a Rabbi. I do remember those 2 things very clearly from my friend, and from the book (and from 20 or so web sites I've looked at since this discussion started). Sources? Then you'll want sources from my sources (oh, wait, you already do). I suggest we just agree to disagree. I really don't mind you not agreeing with me. There are many, many ways people can find answers today. All those sources won't agree.

I have moved since I read that book and cannot find it. However, I have found many references on the internet just with a few quick searches. There are different types of Jews, just as there are different types of Christians. The Catholic Church teaches their "authority" perpetuates from Peter. The Mormon Church claims it does not, and a restoration was needed. Jews differ this severely as well. It might be a case of pick which one you want to believe. Here is a portion of one web site I found that speaks of the possibility of Jesus' marriage being mentioned in scripture: INDIRECT EVIDENCE 1. Jewish customs of Jesus' day required married Rabbis. Unmarried men were considered a curse to Jewish society. Jesus would not have had much credibility as a leader had He not been married. Although Jesus was a non-conformist and had many conflicts with Jewish tradition, His parents, Joseph and Mary, were not. The Bible says that they were careful to perfectly obey the laws of their people. It also says that Jesus was "subject unto them". Since Jewish culture practiced arranged marriages and early marriage, as well (a Jewish boy was marriageable at age 16), it is reasonable to assume that Jesus' parents would have performed their parental duties faithfully and arranged a bride for the young Jesus. There are 18 silent years in His life (12 - 30). The Gospel of John tells us that there were many other things which Jesus did which have not been recorded. This point is important because it shifts the weight of presumption. Given the cultural milieu in which Jesus lived and the supporting Biblical evidence, the burden of proof lies with those who do not believe Jesus was married. They must show why Jesus and His parents would have been derelict in their civic responsibilities and not contracted a marriage. 2. According to Josephus, descendants of the House of David felt a moral obligation to perpetuate their line, never knowing which one among their descendants would be the chosen Messiah. Jesus may or may not have known who He was, but regardless, He lived as a normal person until called by the ministry of John the Baptist. DIRECT EVIDENCE 1. Hippolytus, a Christian leader from the late 2nd Century, was followed by Origen in the 3rd Century in saying that the Song of Solomon was a prophecy of a marital union between Christ and Mary Magdalene. Although they believed Mary was symbolic of the Church, nevertheless, the notion presupposed a real, albeit a spiritual (meaning non-sexual), marriage between Mary and Jesus. 2. There are hints scattered in the Gospels of a special relationship between Jesus and Mary. If she is the same Mary of Bethany in John 11, then we can explain why Martha arose to greet Jesus and not Mary. Some scholars say she was sitting shiva according to Jewish custom. "Shiva" was when a woman was in mourning. Married women were not allowed to break-off from their mourning unless called by their husbands. In this story, Mary does not come to Jesus, until He calls her. · At the Resurrection, when Mary meets Jesus in the Garden, there is a degree of intimacy (see the Aramaic here) which one would expect between lovers, not friends. · The Greek word for "woman" and "wife" is the same. Translators must rely upon the context in deciding how to translate it. Sometimes, the translation is arbitrary. When Mary is referred to as a "woman" who followed Jesus, it can just as easily be translated as "wife". 4. The story of Mary with the alabaster jar anointing the feet of Jesus is cited by some scholars as the most direct witness to their marriage. It is in all four Gospels and was a story in which Jesus gave express command that it be preserved. This ceremony was an ancient one among many royal houses in the ancient world, which sealed the marital union between the king and his priestess spouse. We find it mentioned briefly in the Song of Solomon. Although we may not understand its significance, Jesus and Mary knew exactly what they were doing. To be the valid Messiah, He had to be anointed first by the Bride. They were by-passing the corrupt Jewish establishment. There is more support for the marital status of Jesus. However, it involves a discussion of the Old Testament prophets which would be too tedious to undertake, here. It is important to realize, however, that belief in a married Jesus does not require any more faith than a resurrected Jesus. And if you know where to look, you can find just as much biblical evidence for both. Source: Grail Christianity There were too many sources to list that said very similar things about the evidence found in ancient Jewish tradition.

Everyone is at a different level in their progression. To someone who has either not experienced severe trials as a result of other people and have had to learn forgiveness over the space of many years, or to those who have already been through the process and feel we need to forgive everyone, it's easy to be critical of those struggling to forgive. I appreciate honesty, no matter what it means. I hope one day MsQ will find the ability to forgive through the Atonement of Jesus Christ. I understand her feelings, and I know that if left unchecked they will cause serious pain to herself. By no means do I condone the type of behavior she describes. But, it's not ours to judge or condemn. We don't know but a person will have a change of heart.

It is said that obedience is better than sacrifice. I believe it. Thank you for the time and effort you put into your thoughts.

No, I am referring to what an Orthodox Jew once taught me about Jewish laws and customs. I also have a book titled Jewish History and Tradition. It is clearly spelled out in it. Jesus taught deeper in the temple than the outer courtyard. In fact, the first time those in the temple sought His life was because He claimed the scripture in Isaiah He just read had been fulfilled that day in their ears. An unmarried teacher, whether he was a legal recipient of the priesthood or not, was not allowed to teach or read from the Law or the Prophets within the temple. Not according to Jewish custom. Remember, this event took place at the wedding feast, and not specifically the wedding itself. It indeed was tradition to call the bridegroom and those who were with him to the feast. Think of the story of the 10 virgins, they were being called to the wedding feast and were supposed to follow the bridegroom to the feast. They knew the traditions, and this one pinpoints someone in Jesus' family, or very close kinship, as the bridegroom. It's when this evidence is combined with the other evidence found, where we see it seems to be pointing at Jesus. I'm not saying there is proof, or else we wouldn't be having this discussion. I'm saying if you study Jewish tradition and law, and study this story very close, there is strong evidence of a tie. Don't take my word for it, though. Study it for yourself.

I like Elder Cannon, he's in my line of authority. :)

Yes, but they had no temple. When they had a temple it WAS required they be married to teach in the tmeple. Jesus taught in the temple. There are many other evidences of Jesus being married in the New Testamet. Some are fairly obvious and a study of Jewish customs isn't needed. Other evidences require an understanding of Jewish law and customs. I believe the wedding feast described where Jesus turned water into wine was his very own wedding. As I mentioned, some of the reasons I believe this are because a Jewish friend once pointed out many of the traditions in the story, and others are right there in the story itself. Read the story and pay attention to the ruler or governor of the feast (probably the local Rabbi). Pay close attention to who gives him the wine and who he goes to in order to find out where it came from.