mary magdalene

[volgadon]

There is evidence that Christ was married in the scriptures, he provided the wine at the wedding, that was the job of the groom,

Sigh. Here we go again. In most cases the groom's father was responsible for the wine. At any rate the text indicates that Christ was responding to a crisis, to an irregular situation. the wine ran out, Mary asked her son to intervene on behalf of the host.

[JimmyJames]

I haven't posted here in a long time if ever, but came across this discussion as I was researching this subject myself tonight following up on some geneology going back to early days. Hope this post doesn't shake anyone's faith, Remember the Church does not have any "Official" "Public" stance on the subject of the Savior being married so let common sense and the Spirit be your guide. Read at your own risk....

There are many Doctrines that we are not emotionally, mentally or spiritually prepared for.

Joseph Smith once told the members of the church that if he told them who he really was they would put him to death for it. I suppose that was because of the prominence of his pre-mortal postion.

When I was a pre-teen my older brother came home from seminary one morning with the blashemous report that Joseph smith had had plural wives. "Knowing" this to be a filthy lie, I assauled him with my flimsy fists. I later learned that I was wrong.

The concept of plural marriage is foriegn to most raised in our distorted culture (Earth life) where the adversary misrepresents everything.

The following is from an anti-Mormon site but the quotes are,I believe, accurate if contoversial.

On October 6, 1854, Mormon Apostle Orson Hyde stated,

"How was it with Mary and Martha, and other women that followed him [Jesus]? In old times, and it is common in this day, the women, even as Sarah, called their husbands Lord; the word Lord is tantamount to husband in some languages, master, lord, husband, are about synonymous... When Mary of old came to the sepulchre on the first day of the week, instead of finding Jesus she saw two angels in white, 'And they say unto her, Woman, why weepest thou?' She said unto them,' Because they have taken away my Lord,' or husband, 'and I know not where they have laid him.' And when she had thus said, she turned herself back, and saw Jesus standing, and knew not that it was Jesus. Jesus saith unto her, Woman, why weepest thou? whom seekest thou? She, supposing him to be the gardener, saith unto him, Sir, if thou have borne him hence, tell me where thou hast laid him, and I will take him away. Jesus saith unto her, Mary. She turned herself, and saith unto him, Rabboni; which is to say, Master.' Is there not here manifested the affections of a wife. These words speak the kindred ties and sympathies that are common to that relation of husband and wife" (Journal of Discourses 2:81).

In that same talk he went on to say:

"Now there was actually a marriage; and if Jesus was not the bridegroom on that occasion, please tell who was. If any man can show this, and prove that it was not the Savior of the world, then I will acknowledge I am in error. We say it was Jesus Christ who was married, to be brought into the relation whereby he could see his seed, before he was crucified" (Journal of Discourses 2:82).

It appears that Hyde's teaching was readily accepted by the LDS leadership. We find no record of Hyde being admonished for teaching such a notion. In fact, we find that he made a similar comment six months later. On March 18, 1855 Hyde said:

"I discover that some of the Eastern papers represent me as a great blasphemer, because I said, in my lecture on Marriage, at our last Conference, that Jesus Christ was married at Cana of Galilee, that Mary, Martha, and others were his wives, and that he begat children" (Journal of Discourses 2:210).

Mormon Apostle Orson Pratt agreed with his contemporary when he wrote,

"One thing is certain, that there were several holy women that greatly loved Jesus -- such as Mary, and Martha her sister, and Mary Magdalene; and Jesus greatly loved them, and associated with them much; and when He arose from the dead, instead of showing Himself to His chosen witnesses, the Apostles, He appeared first to these women, or at least to one of them -- namely, Mary Magdalene. Now it would be natural for a husband in the resurrection to appear first to his own dear wives, and afterwards show himself to his other friends. If all the acts of Jesus were written, we no doubt should learn that these beloved women were His wives" (The Seer, p.159).

On page 172 of the same book, Pratt wrote,

"We have now clearly shown that God, the Father had a plurality of wives, one or more being in eternity, by whom He begat our spirits as well as the spirit of Jesus His First Born... We have also proved most clearly that the Son followed the example of his Father, and became the great Bridegroom to whom kings' daughters and many honorable Wives to be married."

On July 22, 1883, Wilford Woodruff recorded the words of Joseph F. Smith in his journal. At the time Woodruff was an LDS apostle while Smith was a member of the First Presidency serving as second counselor to President John Taylor. Woodruff wrote,

"Evening Meeting. Prayer By E Stephenson. Joseph F Smith spoke One hour & 25 M. He spoke upon the Marriage in Cana at Galilee. He thought Jesus was the Bridgegroom and Mary & Martha the brides. He also refered to Luke 10 ch. 38 to 42 verse, Also John 11 ch. 2 & 5 vers John 12 Ch 3d vers, John 20 8 to 18. Joseph Smith spoke upon these passages to show that Mary & Martha manifested much Closer relationship than Merely A Believer which looks Consistet. He did not think that Jesus who decended throug Poligamous families from Abraham down & who fulfilled all the Law even baptism by immersion would have lived and died without being married." (Wilford Woodruff's Journal 8:187, July 22, 1883, spelling left intact).

To my knowledge there is no evidence to indicate that Woodruff disagreed with Smith's comments. Woodruff and Smith later became Mormonism's fourth and sixth presidents.

Was this just a nineteenth century Mormon notion? Not entirely. In a letter dated March 17, 1963, Joseph Fielding Smith was asked if the phrase "he shall see his seed" mentioned in Isaiah 53:10 meant that Christ had children. In the letter it also mentioned that "only through temple marriage can we receive the highest degree of exaltation and dwell in the presence of our Heavenly Father" and since Christ came to set an example, is it correct to assume that Jesus was married? When Smith responded to this letter, he held the position of an LDS apostle. He would later become Mormonism's 10th president after the death of David O. McKay in January of 1970.

Rather than retype the inquirer's questions, Smith handwrote his reply at the bottom of the letter. To the first question he gave a reference from the Book of Mormon, Mosiah 15:10-12, admonishing the inquirer to "Please Read Your Book of Mormon!" The contexts of these passages do not say that Jesus had children. Instead it implies that Jesus' seed are those whose sins Jesus has borne. However, Joseph Fielding Smith answered the second question (Was Jesus married?) by writing, "Yes! But do not preach it! The Lord advised us not to cast pearls before swine!" Underneath his reply bore the signature of Joseph Fielding Smith.

Enough quotes, remember, the Church has no Official stated position on the subject of the Savior being married. One might state that these are Apostles of the Lord speaking and as such certainly know more than we do, or one might say that these were learned and inspired Men of God or one might take the position that these were wonderful men who were just sharing their personal opinions in a public forum and that men in high position have been wrong before. Any any case the truth, whether for or against, will eventually be made known to each of us as we inquire of the Lord to know and rely on His Spirit to reveal the truth to us in the appropriate time.

Personally, I feel very confident that the Saviour was married in this life to set the example, to fullfill all righteousness, and to keep His Fathers Commandments.

p.s. Good job MrMarley

[Hemidakota]

I do remember from that Simcha Jacobivici documentary about the tomb of Jesus, that Mary was the most common woman's name at that time, with about a quarter of the women being named Mary.

True...

[Hemidakota]

Sigh. Here we go again. In most cases the groom's father was responsible for the wine. At any rate the text indicates that Christ was responding to a crisis, to an irregular situation. the wine ran out, Mary asked her son to intervene on behalf of the host.

Then the question is, did the Savior set the example for us to be sealed on earth when opporunity is given? Or, was it necessary for Him to wait to be sealed by proxy prior to His inheritance?

[volgadon]

Then the question is, did the Savior set the example for us to be sealed on earth when opporunity is given? Or, was it necessary for Him to wait to be sealed by proxy prior to His inheritance?

I couldn't say. The only thing we can be reasonably sure of is that the wedding at Cana was not Christ's.

[mikbone]

Then the question is, did the Savior set the example for us to be sealed on earth when opporunity is given? Or, was it necessary for Him to wait to be sealed by proxy prior to His inheritance?

We have scriptural evidence from multiple sources that not only give eyewitness accounts of the baptism of Christ but also explain exactly what happened and why it happened.

We have no evidence in scripture that either documents Christ's marriage or explains if it occurred, or if it was necessary.

Obviously then, answer to your question is:

No, the Savior did not set the example for us to get sealed on earth.

[Hemidakota]

Then why should I be sealed on earth prior to be resurrected then?

[Hemidakota]

We have scriptural evidence from multiple sources that not only give eyewitness accounts of the baptism of Christ but also explain exactly what happened and why it happened.

We have no evidence in scripture that either documents Christ's marriage or explains if it occurred, or if it was necessary.

Obviously then, answer to your question is:

No, the Savior did not set the example for us to get sealed on earth.

It is also noted, we are missing years of the earlier part of His life and what had transpired when He taught the Apostles and close friends after returning from His tasking going to the OTHER LOST SHEEPS.

[Justice]

Sigh. Here we go again. In most cases the groom's father was responsible for the wine. At any rate the text indicates that Christ was responding to a crisis, to an irregular situation. the wine ran out, Mary asked her son to intervene on behalf of the host.

You accuse me of assuming and reading into the text, and now you are.

It could very well be, and makes more sense, that Mary asked Jesus because he was responsible to provide the wine.

My older Jewish friend told me custom in the day was for the bridegrtoom to provide the wine.

In any case, I just wanted to point out your assumption, since you accuse me of assuming.

I don't think Christ would have considered it a crisis if they ran out of wine. And, there's no evidence outside of your assumption that Mary asked Jesus to intervene for someone else. More of your assumptions. In fact, it leans toward it being Christ's responsibility since His mother asked him for wine. It makes more sense that she would go to the person responsible. If there was. as you say, a host responsible, it seems Mary would have went to that person.

Edited May 6, 2010 by Justice

[Hemidakota]

Adding to Justice post, recorded in the Gospel of John, the first public miracle performed by Jesus was the transmutation of water into wine at a marriage feast in Cana. (John 2:1-11.) The Lord did not perform miracles in a capricious manner.

The act of producing wine from water must therefore have had some purpose beyond providing for the temporal entertainment of those who attended the marriage feast. According to John, the miracle "manifested forth his glory" and caused his disciples to "believe on him." (John 2:11.)

Edited May 5, 2010 by Hemidakota

[Hemidakota]

After further reading, I will now turn the tide or switch side, as to propose another aspect that is not usually talked about. Even if this was a Jewish modeled marriage, what was noted during this seven to fourteen day feast?

- Mary seemed to be the hostess at the marriage festival, the one in charge, the one responsible for the entertainment of the guests. It was she who recognized the need for more wine, who sought to replenish the supply, who directed the servants to follow whatever instructions Jesus gave. Considering the Jewish customs of the day, it is a virtual certainty that one of Mary's children was being married.

- Jesus also had a close personal interest in and connection with the marriage and the subsequent festivities. . . . He and apparently at least five of His disciples . . . were 'called' to attend. Since the shortage of wine occurred near the close of the festivities, and since these commonly lasted from seven to fourteen days, it is apparent that Jesus' party was remaining for the entire celebration. . . .

- Participation by Jesus and His disciples in the marriage customs of that day places an endorsing stamp of divine approval upon the system of matrimony itself and also upon reasonable and modest display attending to its solemnization. [see Elder Bruce R. McConkie writings]

In either case, I cannot see any way out for the Savior in leaving mortality without receiving the FULLNESS of the PRIESTHOOD (Temple sealing).

[Justice]

Adding to Justice post, recorded in the Gospel of John, the first public miracle performed by Jesus was the transmutation of water into wine at a marriage feast in Cana. (John 2:1-11.) The Lord did not perform miracles in a capricious manner.

The act of producing wine from water must therefore have had some purpose beyond providing for the temporal entertainment of those who attended the marriage feast. According to John, the miracle "manifested forth his glory" and caused his disciples to "believe on him." (John 2:11.)

Yes. I don't believe He changed the water into wine because He was too cheap to buy some, or to save another a person some embarassment because they didn't provide enough.

Water and wine are symbols of the blood of Christ during the ordinance of Sacrament. He provided the wine, just as He provided the blood for the sacrifice He made.

I do believe there is a connection somewhere, but I have yet to find the whole meaning.

I also haven't found what the significance is IF this was His wedding where He provided the wine... except other than the obvious.

[volgadon]

Yes. I don't believe He changed the water into wine because He was too cheap to buy some, or to save another a person some embarassment because they didn't provide enough.

So Christ wouldn't exert himself to help his friends or relatives? Interesting perspective, that.

As for being too cheap to buy some, where would they have gotten wine from?

Khirbet Qana had no wine presses. To send for some from Sepphoris would have taken all night. You couldn't have just gone down to your local wal-mart back then.

[volgadon]

After further reading, I will now turn the tide or switch side, as to propose another aspect that is not usually talked about. Even if this was a Jewish modeled marriage, what was noted during this seven to fourteen day feast?

Unless it was an extremely wealthy wedding, it would have lasted 3 evenings or so.

- Mary seemed to be the hostess at the marriage festival, the one in charge, the one responsible for the entertainment of the guests. It was she who recognized the need for more wine, who sought to replenish the supply, who directed the servants to follow whatever instructions Jesus gave. Considering the Jewish customs of the day, it is a virtual certainty that one of Mary's children was being married.

The Greek seems to indicate that Mary was also one of the guests. Also, even if she wasn't, it is often a female relative such as an aunt or great aunt that is involved in ordering things around.

- Jesus also had a close personal interest in and connection with the marriage and the subsequent festivities. . . . He and apparently at least five of His disciples . . . were 'called' to attend. Since the shortage of wine occurred near the close of the festivities, and since these commonly lasted from seven to fourteen days, it is apparent that Jesus' party was remaining for the entire celebration. . . .

That they were invited shows that Christ was not the bridegroom.

[Hemidakota]

Yes. I don't believe He changed the water into wine because He was too cheap to buy some, or to save another a person some embarassment because they didn't provide enough.

Water and wine are symbols of the blood of Christ during the ordinance of Sacrament. He provided the wine, just as He provided the blood for the sacrifice He made.

I do believe there is a connection somewhere, but I have yet to find the whole meaning.

I also haven't found what the significance is IF this was His wedding where He provided the wine... except other than the obvious.

Another possibility that I mentioned in a previous posting, this feast could be a family member's [a brother or sister] marriage. There were siblings in the family beside the Savior.

A significant aspect I have mentioned before when seeking a personal answer, my own daughter sought for this answer without even asking me prior before receiving a divine answer concerning the relationship between Mary M. and the Savior. I for one would not even attempt to ask this type of questioning before the Master. Here is a classic difference between a child and an adult with inquisitive questioning.

[Hemidakota]

Unless it was an extremely wealthy wedding, it would have lasted 3 evenings or so.

The Greek seems to indicate that Mary was also one of the guests. Also, even if she wasn't, it is often a female relative such as an aunt or great aunt that is involved in ordering things around.

That they were invited shows that Christ was not the bridegroom.

Thanks for the insights.

[volgadon]

You accuse me of assuming and reading into the text, and now you are.

It could very well be, and makes more sense, that Mary asked Jesus because he was responsible to provide the wine.

Then why would Christ ask what business is it of ours?

My older Jewish friend told me custom in the day was for the bridegrtoom to provide the wine.

The bridegroom's father, usually. However, they ran out of wine in the middle of the celebration, so all bets are off. In cases like that one goes to the person who can provide what is needed.

In any case, I just wanted to point out your assumption, since you accuse me of assuming.

And failed to show that it is an unwarranted assumption, that it is anything more than the plain reading.

I don't think Christ would have considered it a crisis if they ran out of wine.

I used the word crisis to indicate a problem. You can quibble over that, but it is quite irelevant.

And, there's no evidence outside of your assumption that Mary asked Jesus to intervene for someone else. More of your assumptions. In fact, it leans toward it being Christ's responsibility since His mother asked him for wine. It makes more sense that she would go to the person responsible. If there was. as you say, a host responsible, it seems Mary would have went to that person.

See above. see also my previous posts.

[Hemidakota]

Then why would Christ ask what business is it of ours?

Is there any other location to better He began His ministry of 'public miracles' than at a wedding feast before His own relatives and family?

Jesus' reply seems to contain, as did the words of a twelve-year-old boy in the temple. Here, He gave a mild reproof to His mortal mother, "Woman," Savior said. This is form of salutation was respectful phrase, according to the language and customs of the day.

The Savior would again use the same form of salutation as He beheld His mortal mother at the foot of the cross, while lovingly putting Mary's care and keeping to His friend and servant, John.

"Woman" Savior spoke, "what have I to do with thee? mine hour is not yet come." It is as though the Master said: 'Please, I am no longer placed in your care, or subject for further guidance. My ministry has commenced. I am on my Father's business, and I must make the choices. I will determine when the hour is ripe to perform miracles, to preach, to do all that I am sent to do.' Does this sound more resasonable [Elder McConkie paraphrased this].

One can see Mary's understanding, knowing her own son's divine tasking, received this loving gentle reproof. Seeing what follow from Mary's own statement to those who were helping at the feast, had high confidence in her divine son and knew the request would be granted. Mary said, to those who were serving at the feast, "Whatsoever he saith unto you, do it."

[Hemidakota]

Adding more 'fuel' for Volgadon, look at this statement closely; 'Jesus said to the servants, "Fill the waterpots with water." They filled them to the brim. "Draw out now, and bear unto the governor of the feast," he said; and they did so.'

[volgadon]

Is there any other location to better He began His ministry of 'public miracles' than at a wedding feast before His own relatives and family?

Jesus' reply seems to contain, as did the words of a twelve-year-old boy in the temple. Here, He gave a mild reproof to His mortal mother, "Woman," Savior said. This is form of salutation was respectful phrase, according to the language and customs of the day.

The Savior would again use the same form of salutation as He beheld His mortal mother at the foot of the cross, while lovingly putting Mary's care and keeping to His friend and servant, John.

"Woman" Savior spoke, "what have I to do with thee? mine hour is not yet come." It is as though the Master said: 'Please, I am no longer placed in your care, or subject for further guidance. My ministry has commenced. I am on my Father's business, and I must make the choices. I will determine when the hour is ripe to perform miracles, to preach, to do all that I am sent to do.' Does this sound more resasonable [Elder McConkie paraphrased this].

One can see Mary's understanding, knowing her own son's divine tasking, received this loving gentle reproof. Seeing what follow from Mary's own statement to those who were helping at the feast, had high confidence in her divine son and knew the request would be granted. Mary said, to those who were serving at the feast, "Whatsoever he saith unto you, do it."

The Greek indicates that Christ is aksing what is it to you and me. The idiom is found in the Septuagint to translate 1 Kings 17:18.

[Hemidakota]

It is matter of interpretation from a writer’s observation.

Now, I may be reading your post wrong, please let me know if this is not your intentions. I cannot believe in any conversation between Mary and her divine son would be any mistreatment of unkind word exchange. I always see the Savior in a teaching role. Even with His mortal mother.

[volgadon]

It is matter of interpretation from a writer’s observation.

Now, I may be reading your post wrong, please let me know if this is not your intentions. I cannot believe in any conversation between Mary and her divine son would be any mistreatment of unkind word exchange. I always see the Savior in a teaching role. Even with His mortal mother.

Who said there was any mistreatment? The phrasing means what business is it of ourss, or what concern is it of ours.

[Hemidakota]

I had to ask...thanks.

[Daniel2020]

Luke 8:2 indicates that Christ cast seven devils out of Mary Magdalene.

Most churches believe she a prostitute or the woman taken in adultery where Christ said, "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone." There is no scriptural basis for such beliefs.

There is no scriptural record stating Mary Magdalene was Christ's wife. However, the scriptural record indicates Christ appeared to her--and to her alone--before ascending to his Father in Heaven. Can you think of any reason/relationship other than that of husband and wife that would account for such an act? Or for any reason/relationship she could have with Christ other than that of marriage that would make recording her testimony of his resurrection so important. Finally, don't forget that women are seldom named in the Bible and when mentioned in the Bible it is usually in the role of a wife or mother.

Edited May 16, 2010 by Daniel2020

[Justice]

Yeah, to think that was an accidental encounter doesn't do it justice. He could have appeared to anyone, anywhere. And, that it was even recorded in the Bible should give it some significance as well.

Too many people look at what was said in the Bible and steer away from what they did. But, the events or happenings should speak just as loud and maybe even more clearly.