Temple Ordinances & Jesus

[Princess3dward]

I do NOT want to get off topic, but how did you upload a new picture?

I can only use the gallery (not that my picture isn't cute).

[JoshuaFKon]

I do NOT want to get off topic, but how did you upload a new picture?

I can only use the gallery (not that my picture isn't cute).

I'll tell you, if you tell me why the pic I uploaded "nearly killed" you? Should I change it?

Josh B)

[Princess3dward]

Well.. I over exaderated. I was scrolling down, and it jumped out at me with some blade or saw or something.. lol. I just didn't expect it, and I had to scroll down a few more times to get used to it...

Now... HOW did you upload it?

[JoshuaFKon]

Well.. I over exaderated. I was scrolling down, and it jumped out at me with some blade or saw or something.. lol. I just didn't expect it, and I had to scroll down a few more times to get used to it...

Now... HOW did you upload it?

go to www.freeimagehosting.net upload picture there and then use the option to link to your picture in "my controls"

Your welcome.

Josh B)

"over exaderated"...... and you had such fun picking on my spelling....'let he who is without sin cast the first stone.....'

[Princess3dward]

I was hardly stoning you!

I was hoping you couldn't tell that my spelling was worse...

Only that site works?

I confused myself...

[JoshuaFKon]

I was hardly stoning you!

I was hoping you couldn't tell that my spelling was worse...

Only that site works?

I confused myself...

Ok, ok....maybe I "over exaderated" when I said "stoning"

Josh B)

P.S. How did you get your bunny picture to move?

[Princess3dward]

<div class='quotemain'>

I was hardly stoning you!

I was hoping you couldn't tell that my spelling was worse...

Only that site works?

I confused myself...

Ok, ok....maybe I "over exaderated" when I said "stoning"

Josh B)

P.S. How did you get your bunny picture to move?

It always has..

I just got it that way...

[LionHeart]

A few thoughts on the subject: first of all, when the LDS church was being persecuted for polygamy, and the leaders of the church were in hiding, they couldn't go to the temple because it was constantly being watched. Therefore, they could not perform marriage ceremonies in the temple without getting caught and drug off to jail. So this question arose about temple marriages to which John Taylor replied "It's not the place of the ordinance that's important, but the ordinance itself."

I also believe Jesus was married. I believe he had at least three wives actually; Mary, Mary Magdalene, and Martha. Mary Magdalene is the most obvious one, but the New Testament also talks about Jesus holding a special place in His heart for Mary and Martha as well.

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.

Why would He appear first to Mary Magdalene, and not His desciples?

Also read:

John 11:5

Luke 10: 38-42

[Maureen]

Why would He appear first to Mary Magdalene, and not His desciples?

Because she was faithful enough to come to his tomb. Or you could say, she was in the right place at the right time. :)

M.

[Dr T]

Thank you for responding, L.H. I double checked the verses you referred me to and I would have to say that I have a hard time seeing the connection between those and marriage to them. “Taking those to suggest marriage is a huge jump, sir.” I immediately thought, “He loved Lazarus and the apostle John too. Do you think there was something going on there too? As, I’m guessing you don’t see it as anything beyond a closeness between them, I curious as to why you think it means more for those women. I truly apologize if that comparison was offensive to anyone. That was not my intention. Those verses do not do it for me, sir, I’m interested if you have other support for your idea that Jesus was married and married to them. I thank you for your thoughts.

Dr. T

[LionHeart]

<div class='quotemain'>

Why would He appear first to Mary Magdalene, and not His desciples?

Because she was faithful enough to come to his tomb. Or you could say, she was in the right place at the right time. :)

M.

Possibly, but the Bible also presents alot of other evidence that Mary Magdalene was favored by Jesus above most other women.

Thank you for responding, L.H. I double checked the verses you referred me to and I would have to say that I have a hard time seeing the connection between those and marriage to them. “Taking those to suggest marriage is a huge jump, sir.” I immediately thought, “He loved Lazarus and the apostle John too. Do you think there was something going on there too? As, I’m guessing you don’t see it as anything beyond a closeness between them, I curious as to why you think it means more for those women. I truly apologize if that comparison was offensive to anyone. That was not my intention. Those verses do not do it for me, sir, I’m interested if you have other support for your idea that Jesus was married and married to them. I thank you for your thoughts.

Dr. T

Nope, I'm afraid that's all I got. But this is just a personal opinion of mine. I arrive at this opinion because nobody can be ordained to any office without first becoming subject to the rules of that office. How could Jesus, (or God) ask us to obey any commandment which He is not willing to obey Himself. Looking at from this point of view, Jesus MUST have been married. At least according to LDS theology. And according to early LDS theology, he MUST have been married to more than one wife.

L.H.

[Dr T]

THanks L.H.,

You said,

I arrive at this opinion because nobody can be ordained to any office without first becoming subject to the rules of that office. How could Jesus, (or God) ask us to obey any commandment which He is not willing to obey Himself. Looking at from this point of view, Jesus MUST have been married. At least according to LDS theology. And according to early LDS theology, he MUST have been married to more than one wife.

That is exactly what I thought the LDS response would be and that is why I asked this question. Do you see that as the only rational alternative to this issue (That He would have to be)? What if we learn that He was not married? What might that do to your own understanding of this issue?

Thank you,

Dr. T

[LionHeart]

If evidence was ever uncovered that Jesus was, undoubtedly, not married, I doubt it would have much affect on the belief in LDS theology, but only require us to consider other possibilties; such as: perhaps he was given wives after he ascended to His Father, or perhaps He already had wives before He came on this Earth; considering He had already attained to a state of Godhood before he came here. The latter possibility, combined with the teachings of Joseph Smith included in one of the other threads, however, opens up an entirely different can of worms of other possibilities.

L.H.

[Guest ApostleKnight]

Looking at from this point of view, Jesus MUST have been married. At least according to LDS theology.

Not so. The Holy Ghost is a God and member of the Godhead, yet he is a personage of spirit who can't possibly be married according to D&C 132...or as you said...according to LDS theology. Jesus was a God before his mortal birth as well. I don't necessarily think all the "rules" that apply to us have to apply to "them."

Now I just sit back and wait for the misunderstanding to pour in. :)

[boyando]

<div class='quotemain'>

I'm afriad I have a confession to make................Spelling is not my strong suit. (my little sister (7) can spell better then me......... ) Josh B)

Josh, use the spell check - it is at the top of the screen, it is ABC with a check mark under it.

Mrs S:

Thank You for the hint. As bad as I spell, I would have tought that someone would have told me by now.

[boyando]

Seems to me, that we have been here before. For all you new comer's, check out the daVinci code, thread and see if there is anything new in this thread.

So which did come first, the chicken or the egg? If we, LDS member's, do not answer the question of which came first, the chicken or the egg, will you lose your believe that, chicken's exist?

The question posed by Dr T., seems to be a trap. I don't think that's his style.

For me, it will be many years before I have an answer to this question, because I have no real desire to know. Seems almost like a tabloid question, to me (I'm sure it is not meant to be).

Hey its time for breakfast. I think I'll go make me an omlet. Your friend - Allmosthumble

[Princess3dward]

Now I just sit back and wait for the misunderstanding to pour in. :)

Amen.

[Maureen]

...How could Jesus, (or God) ask us to obey any commandment which He is not willing to obey Himself.

Because God is our creator. Why would he be subject to the laws he gives us? We are in different spheres, God is God and we are mere humans. Why would the created expect the creator to be our equal?

M.

[LionHeart]

<div class='quotemain'>

...How could Jesus, (or God) ask us to obey any commandment which He is not willing to obey Himself.

Because God is our creator. Why would he be subject to the laws he gives us? We are in different spheres, God is God and we are mere humans. Why would the created expect the creator to be our equal?

M.

I do see your point, but according to LDS theology, God was once a man. And in order for Him to progress to the point where He is, He had to become subject to the Laws which His Father in Heaven laid out for Him.

True, Jesus is the Son of God, but I will get to that.

[Princess3dward]

<div class='quotemain'>

<div class='quotemain'>

...How could Jesus, (or God) ask us to obey any commandment which He is not willing to obey Himself.

Because God is our creator. Why would he be subject to the laws he gives us? We are in different spheres, God is God and we are mere humans. Why would the created expect the creator to be our equal?

M.

I do see your point, but according to LDS theology, God was once a man. And in order for Him to progress to the point where He is, He had to become subject to the Laws which His Father in Heaven laid out for Him.

True, Jesus is the Son of God, but I will get to that.

That wasn't his job. His job was to die for our sins so we can repent and be clean.

Would you like to have had that job instead?

[LionHeart]

<div class='quotemain'>

Looking at from this point of view, Jesus MUST have been married. At least according to LDS theology.

Not so. The Holy Ghost is a God and member of the Godhead, yet he is a personage of spirit who can't possibly be married according to D&C 132...or as you said...according to LDS theology. Jesus was a God before his mortal birth as well. I don't necessarily think all the "rules" that apply to us have to apply to "them."

Now I just sit back and wait for the misunderstanding to pour in. :)

You are right, the Holy Ghost is a personage of spirit, who cannot be married, however, the Holy Ghost, although He is a member of the Goddhead, is governed by the Father and the Son. The Holy Ghost does not have a body of flesh and bones, but Jesus did come down and recieve that. Therefore, if He was to be a true example unto us, He would have had to fit in with the laws His Father in Heaven had for Him. Otherwise, how could He expect us to do the same? Wasn't one of His purposes for coming to this Earth to be a perfect example to us? So to sum it all up, "there is a law, irrevocably decreed in heaven, upon which all blessing are predicated. And if someone is to recieve a blessing at the hand of God, it is by obedience to that law upon which it is predicated." If there are certain laws that must be obeyed in order to attain to the level of Godhood, Jesus, and God the Father must have become subject to those laws. For this law is "irrevocably decreed in Heaven."

And to add my personal opinion on the Holy Ghost, I believe that the Holy Ghost is not any one particular personage; I believe it is an office which is held by many personages. Much the same as Elias is an office and not any one particular person. Ever wonder what the deal is with Guardian Angels? I believe that office and the Holy Ghost are one and the same. But don't ask for a source, because that is my personal opinion.

I hope I didn't misunderstand your post. If so, please clarify. Thanks.

L.H.

[JoshuaFKon]

That wasn't his job. His job was to die for our sins so we can repent and be clean.

Would you like to have had that job instead?

Sorry, but I'm confused...we agree that Jesus came to "take away the sins of the world" what is your point?

Josh B)

[LionHeart]

So which did come first, the chicken or the egg? If we, LDS member's, do not answer the question of which came first, the chicken or the egg, will you lose your believe that, chicken's exist?

Let me fill you in on what Brigham Young had to say on this topic:

"Then, can you by process of reasoning or argument, tell whether it was

an apple that bore the first seed of an apple, or an apple seed that

made the first apple? Or, whether it was a seed of a squash that made

the first squash, or a squash that bore the first squash seed? Such

abstruse questions belong to the philosophy of the world; in reality

there never was and never will be a time when there was not both the

apple and the apple seed."

This doctrine is consistent with the teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith in the King Follett discourse and the discourse he gave on the 16th of June 1844

L.H.

[Princess3dward]

That wasn't his job. His job was to die for our sins so we can repent and be clean.

Would you like to have had that job instead?

Sorry, but I'm confused...we agree that Jesus came to "take away the sins of the world" what is your point?

Josh B)

His job wasn't just to live the perfect life, He had a much bigger purpose.

He doesn't need to get married!

[JoshuaFKon]

His job wasn't just to live the perfect life, He had a much bigger purpose.

He doesn't need to get married!

Then how did He "become" a god?

Josh B)