Anddenex

I use these two statements as an example that the term "Revelation" doesn't need to be used for it to be considered revelation. On my mission, Elder Holland in one of our zone conferences stated that he would not be surprised if the proclamation "The Family" became canon. 

I replaced my front lawn with native plants using a city rebate program.  I thought it would look all desert like being Southern California, but they are thriving.  When I planted, it was literally all dirt with tiny green plants scattered about.  The pic is from several months ago, and they have filled in even more, and most have purple flowers now.  Looks amazing but now that I know what the plants look like beyond their tiny buds, I might transplant and buy some filler plants.  

We do the half lawn AND half everything and anything we can cram into the space approach. This is our yard... just part of my "front" yard! This has been a family project. Everything you see has been planted/placed by 4 little boys and their parents. When we bought the house it was only grass and one dying shrub. Many family nights in the "garden"
EDIT: we live in a Zone 4-5, so we have to baby our plants each year!

 

I use these two statements as an example that the term "Revelation" doesn't need to be used for it to be considered revelation. On my mission, Elder Holland in one of our zone conferences stated that he would not be surprised if the proclamation "The Family" became canon. 

Speaking of personal apostasy. The missionary that baptized my youngest son, that brought the Gospel to my home and helped reactivate my family is one who now champions this issue and all things leftist politic. He doesnt resemble the excellent missionary that was so spiritual at all and now has long hair, flowing beard and is involved with such worthy organizations as Occupy and now ......is shacking up with Kate Kelly of Ordain Woman fame. After a quick view of her Facebook page, I wonder how anyone could ever have really been a disciple....
Talk about heart breaking....seeing this young man change so much that has meant so much in my life and my families. Total confusion..

I'm not sure it needs to go so far as treason. It is, literally, the abandonment of a belief. If the LDS church has a teaching, to think it a mistaken teaching is apostasy. That's different than someone who has abandoned ALL beliefs...which would be full apostasy. But apostasy isn't an all or nothing thing, and it isn't hard line, except with each individual concept which we accept or not.

I am not sure that defining apostasy by doctrine is completely rational.  I think of apostasy as the act of treason and sudission against G-d, his laws, covenants, priesthood and appointed servants.  I don't think that being mental or crazy is a sin but can lead to sin.  I do wonder what a person has to do to convince the world that they gone mental and have lost connection to reality.
 
The Traveler 

Oh..and....yes. Absolutely, no questions, without a doubt. Yes.

Absolute sarcasm. The priesthood ban is the go-to argument I hear on this issue (and I could see the echo of it in your OP). Quoting your friend:
You see, the current policy is borne of cultural prejudice just like the priesthood policy came from cultural prejudice. Now that such bigotry is finally waning, God can step in and move us in the right direction just like He did in 1978.
My sarcasm is that the argument can be reversed and just as valid. With a nod to @The Folk Prophet's old signature, once you've accepted that the highest councils of the Church are swayed by public pressure and attitudes, how do you determine when they bowed to public will and when they spoke the mind of God? The assumption is the leadership went along with the prevailing culture in 1878 but 1978 was a revelation. Well, why not turn it the other way? Brigham got the revelation and Kimball bowed to public pressure. The rest of society has progressed with respect to LGBT issues, its time for the Church to leave outdated mores and listen to a loving God. Really? We're assuming presentism as the voice of God?! Wouldn't it be better if God had representatives on the earth today to speak for Him?
I'm fully on board with both Official Declarations.

I think it does, or at the very least is placing oneself on the pathway that leads there.  This belief is in direct contradiction to the Gospel and modern revelations.
 
"The Family: A Proclamation to the World" defines the official position of the church on family, marriage, gender roles, and human sexuality.
Some key points from the Proclamation:
Marriage between a man and a woman is ordained of God.
The family is ordained of God and central to God's plan.
As a beloved spirit son or daughter of Heavenly Parents, each person has a divine nature and destiny.
Gender is an essential characteristic of human identity before, during, and after life on Earth.
Children are entitled to birth within the bonds of matrimony, and to be reared by a father and a mother who honor marital vows with complete fidelity.
Sexual relations are sacred and properly take place only between a married man and woman.
Procreation is divinely appointed, and therefore life is sacred and an important part of God's plan.
Disintegration of the family will bring "calamities foretold by ancient and modern prophets."

Unfortunately, too many people, in and out of the church have replaced True religion with fake religion.  Their religion today is psychology.  The beginning of the end is when people start thinking that homosexuals or transgender people, or whoever are "born that way".  This is a very pernicious, false and down right evil thinking.
Because the logic goes well, if they were "born that way" they can't "help it" and why would a "loving" God punish someone who can't help their feelings.  Since they can't "help it", therefore there must be validity to their feelings, i.e. their feelings must be "okay" and because their feelings are "okay" why would one deny them the ability to act on their feelings.  Denying them the ability to act on their innate, in-born, God-given feelings would be an act of cruelty and therefore the Church is wrong, the Scriptures are wrong and thousands of years of culture saying it is wrong is also wrong, not just wrong but evil.
Quite frankly, no one knows why or how someone develops homosexual feelings; there is absolutely 0 hard science saying there is a homosexual gene or anything of the sort.  To put a reason as to why someone feels like that is completely fruitless.  All we do know is that acting upon homosexual feelings is wrong and is evil.  The same as acting upon any other number of feelings we get . . . I get angry but I can't act upon it and go beat up some random stranger.

I know, right! OD2 should have never happened.

I've read through this website before and it did nothing but confirm to  me that the Lord loves all His children and so do the leaders of our church.  Even the latest policy on excommunication and not baptizing children in gay households are measures of compassion and love.  So when someone speaks in such caustic terms about this or other hot button topics, basically criticizing our leaders, It raises a red flag in my mind and feels like they are taking a step into apostasy. 
My hardest issue is when those close to me start talking this way. I'm usually so dumbfounded I don't know how to respond. My bubble is bursting. My own convictions and testimony remain intact but I wonder if I should warn those loved ones how close to the cliff they are getting. 
Gay marriage just happens to be the ever present topic that is tripping so many up. And it seems I'm one who hasn't "seen the light" yet. I have a feeling the social pressure surrounding this will only get harder rather than easier.

What has Anddenex learned from the dialogue regarding Christ being married/unmarried:
1) Mormons are not brainwashed, otherwise we all would be saying "He was married..." or "He wasn't married..." We would be puppets; Unless, the brainwashing purposely taught a certain percentage to say "We believe he was married" and another percentage to say "He was unmarried" and another percentage to be peacekeeper. Hmmm...
2) The thread could have ended with Omega's first response, as everyone said the same thing. There is no official declaration by any prophet, as announced to the Church collectively that Jesus was married. Many, if not all of our past prophets, spoke though in the context of him being married; at least, I have never read a prophet (historically) say he wasn't.
3) If the Bible doesn't specifically say it, then it wasn't so, and it never happened. The Bible doesn't say John the Beloved was married, so we can safely assume he wasn't married either. For that matter, I believe Peter is the only mention of a wife, so all other 15 Apostles (including the one called to fill Judas's vacancy), were "unmarried."
4) Jesus (Jehovah) commanded all his followers to be married. The very first commandment he gave, with his Father, was to multiply and replenish the earth and that "it was not good that the man [which Jesus was] should be alone." A person that commands and then does the opposite is usually what we would consider a "hypocrite." Or as Elder Bednar pointed out "Being consistent in our homes is important for another reason. Many of the Savior's harshest rebukes were directed to hypocrites. Jesus warned His disciples concerning the scribes and Pharisees: 'Do not ye after their works: for they say, and do not.' This strong admonition is sobering given the counsel to 'express love-and show it,' to 'bear testimony - and live it,' and to 'be consistent.'" Jesus was one to say, and do, to bear and to live.
5) We love to speculate and teach possible speculation as truth. This topic diverged from "Jesus wasn't married, why do we command it," to Jesus was not married in this life but he was possibly married in the pre-mortal existence, (as Spirits). Why did he get so lucky to be married as a Spirit, and my poor wife had to wait "at least 6000 years to finally meet me, her (*cough) perfect mate. So unfair to my wife. She will probably (*cough), like most women, nag Heavenly Father about how unfair that was...(Anddenex, reconsiders the last statement, and figures, "what the heck, I am an keyboard warrior, I can say what ever I want on a keyboard -- I have the power! (He-man quote))."
Needless to say. I believe he was married. There is no official doctrine on the topic, and when all truth is revealed I will accept the truth.......
*********************
*cough "He was married."
 

What has Anddenex learned from the dialogue regarding Christ being married/unmarried:
1) Mormons are not brainwashed, otherwise we all would be saying "He was married..." or "He wasn't married..." We would be puppets; Unless, the brainwashing purposely taught a certain percentage to say "We believe he was married" and another percentage to say "He was unmarried" and another percentage to be peacekeeper. Hmmm...
2) The thread could have ended with Omega's first response, as everyone said the same thing. There is no official declaration by any prophet, as announced to the Church collectively that Jesus was married. Many, if not all of our past prophets, spoke though in the context of him being married; at least, I have never read a prophet (historically) say he wasn't.
3) If the Bible doesn't specifically say it, then it wasn't so, and it never happened. The Bible doesn't say John the Beloved was married, so we can safely assume he wasn't married either. For that matter, I believe Peter is the only mention of a wife, so all other 15 Apostles (including the one called to fill Judas's vacancy), were "unmarried."
4) Jesus (Jehovah) commanded all his followers to be married. The very first commandment he gave, with his Father, was to multiply and replenish the earth and that "it was not good that the man [which Jesus was] should be alone." A person that commands and then does the opposite is usually what we would consider a "hypocrite." Or as Elder Bednar pointed out "Being consistent in our homes is important for another reason. Many of the Savior's harshest rebukes were directed to hypocrites. Jesus warned His disciples concerning the scribes and Pharisees: 'Do not ye after their works: for they say, and do not.' This strong admonition is sobering given the counsel to 'express love-and show it,' to 'bear testimony - and live it,' and to 'be consistent.'" Jesus was one to say, and do, to bear and to live.
5) We love to speculate and teach possible speculation as truth. This topic diverged from "Jesus wasn't married, why do we command it," to Jesus was not married in this life but he was possibly married in the pre-mortal existence, (as Spirits). Why did he get so lucky to be married as a Spirit, and my poor wife had to wait "at least 6000 years to finally meet me, her (*cough) perfect mate. So unfair to my wife. She will probably (*cough), like most women, nag Heavenly Father about how unfair that was...(Anddenex, reconsiders the last statement, and figures, "what the heck, I am an keyboard warrior, I can say what ever I want on a keyboard -- I have the power! (He-man quote))."
Needless to say. I believe he was married. There is no official doctrine on the topic, and when all truth is revealed I will accept the truth.......
*********************
*cough "He was married."
 

Let me put it another way....  If anyone qualified to be exempt it would have been Christ....
But that feeds the point... If Christ was not exempt from Baptism there is no logic in this world that can make him exempt from the other ordinances that are required for salvation or exaltation

What if we assume that "Godx" is a title for one or more Priesthood offices, like "Stake President" and "President of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (but with a much higher "holiness quotient")?
Jesus was ordained to the Office(s) of God2/Son of God/Redeemer/Savior/Creator/etc./&c. At some point, He will be (or has been) ordained to a different Office (also called "God1"). There are different Offices, both "Godx", and each with its own requisite ordinances, etc.
Lehi

Jesus being an exception would be acceptable given what he is...
However the one ordnance we have a record of shows that Jesus was not an exception to it...  And a very logical response it to assume that reasoning and logic for his not being a exception to one holds true for all the others...
But we have no proof either way for any other ordinance
 

Duplicate.

I hate when a thread goes on and I want to respond to page 1.
Anyway, I believe any record of Jesus being married or having children was suppressed by the later bishops of the early church so no one could stake a claim as a descendant of Christ.  I can only imagine the chaos that would ensue.

Some thoughts about Jesus being married   I am always interested in what people believe and why.  As a scientist and engineer very little of what I believe can be found directly in the Bible.  In fact there is nothing in the Bible that tells us what should be or should not be in the Bible or even that there ought to be a Bible.  Many assume that if something is in the bible it is true – if it is not in the Bible it is false?  If one was to sit in the home of just about any Christian as ask, “Please tell me the story of the birth of the baby Jesus?” 

The Bible has 20 verses that tell of the birth of Jesus and the lot of them can be completely read is a little over a minute.  Few Christians realize but most of what they think is details about the birth of Jesus are not Biblical – yet they say details and teach them as though they are true and from the Bible.  For example – Joseph was rejected after asking for shelter from staying in any Inns in Bethlehem because they were all full.  That Joseph was directed by an Inn keeper to a stable where he could find shelter.  Now that I have pointed out some Biblical inconsistencies to the usual nativity narrative some Christians may modify their story – but only when confronted with Bible in hand.

There are many statements in the Bible that prove he was married.  But skeptics that want desperately to believe something different will declare such proof inconclusive – they want more (actually they do not what any) and thus dismiss the proof like the man that stands in the full light of day and declares it night demanding that they be proven wrong.

There are a preponderance of ancient documents dating back to the first century BC that speak of the marriage of Christ and his wife.  Many of these documents date back to before any copies we have of any New Testament texts and during the lifetime of Apostles and writers that contributed to the documents that are currently defined as our New Testament.   For those that demand proof - If Jesus was not married why is there nothing in the Bible to prove he was not married?

But more – I would like to know why anyone would believe and purport that marriage is not of vital importance to G-d such that his Son would be commanded not to marry?  Why would someone think or believe such a thing?   I personally think the answer to reject the possibility of the marriage of Christ is in two parts – First they do not understand much of divine attributes of G-d (especially as directly associated to the Father) and two they do not understand much of the divine purpose of marriage – which could explain much confusion concerning what is marriage in our current interpretations of the law concerning marriage.

 
the Traveler

Highly doubtful; what woman would want a man who really is always right and really can walk on water?
Besides:
"I have a headache."
"Not anymore."

Even if we assume that Jesus was not married, there are a few things to consider:
1.  As I re-read 2 Ne 31:7-9, it occurs to me that maybe the point isn't just "Jesus was baptized to set an example that we too must be baptized".  Rather, it could be read as saying that Jesus is going through the entire outward process of conversion (first principles and ordinances) to "set an example" as to the conversion process specifically.  He humbleth Himself before the Father (faith), witnesseth that He Himself will be obedient (the closest a sinless person can come to repenting), is baptized in token thereof, and then receives the Holy Ghost (in the sign of the dove); and the "example" verse 9 refers to is His example of entering into the Kingdom via the proper procedural steps.  Sealing to a spouse is not part of the initial conversion process; thus, it may be outside the scope of the "example" Nephi says Jesus was supposed to be setting.
2.  The ordinance of baptism belongs to the Aaronic Priesthood and at least a variant of it was commonly practiced among the Jews in Jesus' lifetime.  The ordinance of sealing, however, pertains to the Melchizedek Priesthood (and specifically, a holder who also happens to have the sealing keys) and would have been completely foreign to post-Mosaic Israel.  If Jesus' exemplary function was primarily aimed at His Jewish audience, then they couldn't hold it against Him for not (publicly) entering into a covenant that they didn't even know existed.
3.  We routinely accept that people who didn't have the "opportunity" for marriage in this life, will be given that opportunity thereafter.  Why couldn't Jesus be deemed to have not had that opportunity, due to the trauma etc. that His ultimate demise must have inflicted on a wife and progeny?
4.  It may be that, public examples aside, Jesus' route to exaltation was slightly different than the rest of us hoi polloi.  We depend in part on the generation of seed for our exaltation; but Isaiah (and Abinadi) suggest that Jesus receives His seed when the rest of us choose to be classified in that category (Isaiah 53:8, 10-11; Mosiah 15:10.)

Ok.... name an important man... that lived 2000+ years ago...  I am sure you can name quite a few....  Now name their spouse... who only claim to fame is that they were married...
How many do you got?    If you got more then zero you have impressed me...  The simple fact is spouses are not historically important.
 
The case against Christ being married is...
the is no 2000 year old mention of that happening...  Which is totally typical for that kind of record...
 
The case for Christ being married is... 
Sealing is a required Ordinance like Baptism... Christ did one to fulfill all righteousness but not the other?  That makes no sense
The Bride Groom is responsible for the wedding wine... Christ handled the wedding wine by turning water into wine
Jewish rabbis were traditionally married before they start ministering... Of all the accusations leveled against Christ non were of the nature that he neglected "Family duties"
When he resurrected the first person he showed himself was to a woman.... Not the apostles, not the church leaders to be, but a woman...  What kind of woman would have such a rightful claim on Jesus's attention and priorities?  It was not his mother, or any of his sisters.
 
Yes there is no direct claim that Jesus was married... but there plenty of things that suggest exactly that if you understand the historical context of what is going on.
 
 

Not if the writers wanted her (and her children) ignored.
Your position is mere assumption on your (and others') part. Just as the position that He was married is assumption. The evidence is inconclusive and "bi-polar".  Nonetheless, when Parley P. said He was married to Mary Magdalene and Martha, it leads me to accept the fact of His following the same rules we all do, just as He always did and has.
Lehi