Glory Days (for time and all eternity)

[Bensalem]

Found this interesting clip from the Unification Church started by Rev. Moon in Korea.

Jesus Came to Deliver us from the Original Sin and Restore God's Original Lineage on Earth- YouTube (about 5 minutes long)

It professes the following ideas: Jesus’ mission was cut short by the crucifixion resulting in his inability to marry and take a wife; that his mission was not to die on the cross but to marry and example the ideal family. The intention (will of God) being to restore what was lost by Adam and Eve’s original failure. Hence, 2000 years of Christianity focused incorrectly on self-sacrifice and austere monastic theologies, which tended to deny one of marriage in favor of working on one’s individual salvation.

Of course, this all leads to the Unification Church’s theology that Reverend Sun Myong Moon was given the divine mission to fulfill the goal of a perfect marriage spoiled by the fall of Adam and again by the premature death of Christ.

Scriptures require that false doctrine be identified and corrected. I would prefer to concentrate on presenting what I believe to be the LDS perspective.

Adam and Eve did not fail in marriage; they chose to come to earth under conditions commanded by God. The Fall was fulfillment of the plan, as was the Salvation performed by Christ.

Christ did not fail at his mission and the crucifixion did not cut short his marriage to a human wife. His death marks the meridian of time and everything happened according to scripture on God’s timetable. Christ’s atonement was 100% fulfillment of scripture. Nothing was missed or lost.

Christ betrothed the world with his promise of salvation. And upon his return his love will be consummated toward his Church, the Bride of Christ (aka, the LDS Church).

The doctrines of exalted marriage in Israel (aka, the LDS Church) are based on covenants revealed to the prophets of God as part of the promised restoration of all things and are irrevocably connected to the Melchizedek priesthood of God and Christ.

A perfect marriage will exist between God and Church in His reign and between glorified man and glorified woman in covenant with Christ.

[Bensalem]

Agree. Not LDS doctrine, but there are some who believe Christ was married before he died, but I won't go into any more of that Da Vinci Code stuff. Either way, we believe that the highest exaltation is reached by those who are sealed with a spouse for time and all eternity, so all members of the Godhead would be sealed.

I am vaguely familiar with this idea that Christ married before completing the atonement and I wish it would either go away or be validated. Personally, I don't see the need for it's existence. It seems irrelevant. If marriage can be made after death in a Temple, than why couldn't Christ have married after his death? Or why do we assume he was single before coming here?

[Bensalem]

Although that symbolism is used, I think most people in the LDS church think of Jesus as more of a big brother and a Savior, than as a spouse. I'm not sure what you mean by consummate?

I take the idea of a union of Christ and his Church more literal. Jesus can remain our brother and Savior but the body of Christ is the Church and He is our head (as a husband in a family). I see a plurality of priests and their wives within the frame work of God and Church.

I use consummate to mean fulfill his love for us in the Church, to glorify us as husband and wife and to exalt us to Godhood.

[Bensalem]

The feminine divine is a very sacred subject, and just as there is very little official info on our Heavenly Mother, there is not any info on who Jesus married. Yes, Jesus had the ability to marry either before or after his earthly death, it is not given at this time to know which.

That is an interesting idea, either way you put it, there will be some who will be part of Heavenly Father's family, and that would be a great family to be a part of!

I can see by the lack of participation on this thread that it is a subject most would rather avoid. So thank you for indulging me.

I'll have to be more blunt; the concept of Jesus taking a bride in this mortal life is offensive to me. Why would perfection take on imperfection? What purpose is there in having this gossip floating around? Our doctrine of eternal marriage being a requirement for attaining the highest exaltation, as Christ surely has or will obtain, does not require an earthly marriage at the time Christ was on earth.

I included the clip from the Unification Church because it identifies the first 2000 years of Christianity as wrongly focusing on self-sacrifice and austere living in service to Christ. I don't think that such a focus was entirely misplaced, especially since the covenants of eternal marriage in Israel had not been established in the first Church. In fact, Christ taught that leaving all earthly connections to go out and preach the Word was an appropriate venture. This matches perfectly what our missionaries do before finding a bride for the eternities.

I think the latter-day revelations which brought us eternal marriage in the mid-1800's only completes the picture and gives our claim of the restoration and the LDS Church itself more validity. The concept of an earthly bride for Jesus reduces that validity and adds confusion.

I like to believe that Christ remained single after his death and continued to work toward perfecting His bride, the Church.

Edited July 18, 2012 by Bensalem

[Seminarysnoozer]

Why would perfection take on imperfection?

I am not sure I understand your definition of perfection here. Are you meaning "perfection" as in a completely exalted being, with an already resurrected perfected body similar to God's that will never die again?

Or do you mean perfection in the sense of being sinless. I would say that all of us that make it here were sinless before being born. Otherwise, babies should be baptized at birth. I think we all know that babies don't need to be baptized. Why? because they are sinless. So, all of us take on imperfection by coming to this world despite being "perfect" before coming here. We weren't yet perfected but we were perfect. It is described by the prophets as a necessary step to move downward then forward. It is the step necessary to understand good and evil. That is why perfection (of the sinless type) needs to take on imperfection (of the corrupted body, mortal type) to become like God.

[Bensalem]

I am not sure I understand your definition of perfection here. Are you meaning "perfection" as in a completely exalted being, with an already resurrected perfected body similar to God's that will never die again?

Or do you mean perfection in the sense of being sinless. I would say that all of us that make it here were sinless before being born. Otherwise, babies should be baptized at birth. I think we all know that babies don't need to be baptized. Why? because they are sinless. So, all of us take on imperfection by coming to this world despite being "perfect" before coming here. We weren't yet perfected but we were perfect. It is described by the prophets as a necessary step to move downward then forward. It is the step necessary to understand good and evil. That is why perfection (of the sinless type) needs to take on imperfection (of the corrupted body, mortal type) to become like God.

I take Christ to have been sinless throughout his life and perfect spiritually. His spiritual perfection extended from premortality and continued in obedience. There was no female on earth worthy of becoming his wife.

Specifically, as related to the Unification Church's perspective, marriage in the human sense was never a part of Christ's mission. His mission was to perform the atonement, 'betroth' us in salvation, and 'marry' us in consecration to Him so that we could be exalted in eternal and perfect marriage.

[Bensalem]

I think Jesus has the ability to cleanse us of our sins, so if Jesus were married in his mortal life, I would not view it as a defiling relationship, but as an example to be married that we would follow - just as Jesus was baptized as an example for us to follow.

Just speculation, but I think Christ will have his own personal family, just like Heavenly Father and Heavenly Mother are a personal family - that Their relationship will be a model for us to follow in our own individual relationships, but that is just my own personal take on it.

The symbolism behind polygamy, and what that concept is supposed to be preparing us for, is one of the mysteries. I personally view polygamy as being symbolic of Jesus being born to a handmaid, rather than to Heavenly Mother -

(New Testament | Luke 1:38)

38 And Mary said, Behold the handmaid of the Lord;

That Jesus had to be half mortal - but I also believe in the virgin birth, that the relationship between Heavenly Father and Mary could be considered a marriage, but was not a consummated marriage. I think all of us are born to handmaids, which must be a hard thing for our Heavenly Parents, at least as a parent myself, it would be hard to adopt my kids out to others. There are a lot of barren women in the Old Testament who brought handmaids into the family, what is that supposed to symbolize?

(Old Testament | Isaiah 54:1)

1 SING, O barren, thou that didst not bear; break forth into singing, and cry aloud, thou that didst not travail with child: for more are the children of the desolate than the children of the married wife, saith the LORD.

I think the joy within the millennium will entail Heavenly Mother finally being united with her children. Just my opinion though.

Granted, Christ could have forgiven the sins of a mortal wife but that would not have made her perfect (meaning glorified). Christ himself was not yet glorified. Yet he was spiritually perfect. And so the 'defilement' or unworthiness of his wife would have been a spiritual one.

I don't deny Christ "a personal family" or an actual wife. But I reject that taking a physical wife while on earth was any part of his mission or personal goal. His goal was fixed on doing only what his Father in heaven commanded. And without scriptures to support the will of the Father in this matter, it is senseless to continue it's possibility.

After all we remain heavenly Father's children unless we are reborn in Christ and through the 'womb' of baptism in His Church, which makes of descendants of heavenly Father and the new children of Christ.

I don't believe Christ was "half mortal" as you suggest. His flesh was 100% mortal as demonstrated by his death.

I believe we are all surrogates, as Joseph and Mary were, until we come into eternal marriage. Our children remain His until they are sealed to us as our eternal offspring in Christ.

Polygamy is the eternal principle which allows it all to come together and make sense.

[Bensalem]

How is the church any more worthy of becoming his wife than any female?

We aren't until His second coming when we will be glorified in Him.

[Bensalem]

I still don't see how it would defile, as we can become spiritually worthy within this life, and as you say, Jesus was not yet glorified in the flesh either, so I don't see a problem with the possibility, especially as marriage is a commandment.

Defile was the word you brought into the discussion; I used unworthy. The reason I don't accept the possibility of an earthly marriage is because there is no evidence that the will of the Father commanded it. And Christ's mission was to do the will of his Father.

Descendants of God as in:

(New Testament | Luke 3:38)

38 Which was the son of Enos, which was the son of Seth, which was the son of Adam, which was the son of God.

vs. children of Christ:

(Book of Mormon | Mosiah 5:7)

7 And now, because of the covenant which ye have made ye shall be called the children of Christ, his sons, and his daughters; for behold, this day he hath spiritually begotten you; for ye say that your hearts are changed through faith on his name; therefore, ye are born of him and have become his sons and his daughters.

I guess we do have more than one set of parents.

Yes, and each family in those glorified trees recorded in the Bible is either a physical or spiritual descendant of a glorified family.

This might sound strange, but I've always thought that we have a warped view of what the parent/child relationship is because we tie it in so much with having sex and getting pregnant. Just my opinion, but if Eve was cursed with pregnancy in Eden - seems like pregnancy is the cursed way to have children - not to say getting pregnant is a horrible thing to do, it is wonderful, and necessary part of the process, but I think our bonds with a Heavenly Family will be formed through covenants - perhaps there will be some physical part to it, such as physically forming our new bodies somehow, who knows - perhaps I cling to the idea of a monogamous relationship too tightly, thinking that somehow within all the bonds that we have with all the billions of other beings out there, we will each have one person - one bond - that is unique from all the others? I'm not sure how that will happen, but I hope that it will.

I am a firm believer that spiritual children are created in premortality, in this world, and in the afterlife through speaking the Word toward conversion. And since He (God and Christ) is the Word, they are His children, respectively. The Church is required for one to become identified more fully as belonging to Christ, otherwise we remain with the Father. When we in the Church become the Word through exaltation, then we begin to have our own spiritual children, not excluding those that were born here to us and we raised in the gospel (provided they have chosen to be sealed to us in a Temple of our Lord), otherwise, they remain of an earlier generation. After-all, the birthright in Ephraim and Manasseh continues into eternity.

You don't think Jesus had the choice of living forever in his mortal state? For some reason I always thought he had the choice, of either sacrificing his life, or not - that he inherited half from his mother, and half from his Father, that because of his Father he could have chosen to be immortal. I could be wrong though.

Tough question. I don't think he could have attained glory (immortality) if he had not fulfilled his mission and died. Yet, if the Jews accepted him as their Messiah and honored his reign, the Father would have changed everyone in the twinkling of eye. But it was never part of the plan. Salvation first and exaltation later is the plan.

I always thought our children become our brothers and sisters beyond the veil? I could be wrong on that too though.

He can be brothers and sisters in God and also be the next generation of families.

Polygamy is needed in raising up seed (Jacob 2:30)... we need Earthly parents and Heavenly Parents, a God and a Savior - so lots of parental figures involved. I still hold to the idea that we will all be able to have a single special someone after all is said and done though - that parental figures will join forces in order to raise up children in polygamy type family bonds, but that there will also be monogamous marriage bonds - not for children - but for the sake of the couple. Just my wishful thinking though.

Polygamy is necessary so that eternal couples can adopt women and there children by a husband who did not make it into the highest heaven. It legitimizes and exalts a woman's faithfulness. Edited July 18, 2012 by Bensalem

[Seminarysnoozer]

I take Christ to have been sinless throughout his life and perfect spiritually. His spiritual perfection extended from premortality and continued in obedience. There was no female on earth worthy of becoming his wife.

Specifically, as related to the Unification Church's perspective, marriage in the human sense was never a part of Christ's mission. His mission was to perform the atonement, 'betroth' us in salvation, and 'marry' us in consecration to Him so that we could be exalted in eternal and perfect marriage.

I am still not sure of your use of the word perfect. There are other people who are sinless who have lived in this life, at least as far as I know. What sin does the person born with trisomy 18 have, or trisomy 21? What sin does the person who dies before the age of 8 have? Perfect, perfected and sinless are not always interchangeable terms.

If Jesus was completely perfect (in the 'matured' sense of the word, meaning no further steps to take for advancement) upon birth then why did He not start His mission on Earth from day number one, why would He have to wait until He was 30 years old? Why does it say that he matured in the eyes of man and God? Why would He have to fast 40 days and nights prior to His mission? Wouldn't He already be spiritually prepared for such a thing?

[Seminarysnoozer]

Polygamy is necessary so that eternal couples can adopt women and there children by a husband who did not make it into the highest heaven. It legitimizes and exalts a woman's faithfulness.

This is not LDS doctrine, this is your opinion. I have never seen such doctrine. I am open to the possibility of being wrong and if so, please tell me where you got such information.

We have no knowledge, as far as I know, of polygamy existing in the Eternal realms. I would have a hard time believing there is any shortage of men in the Celestial Kingdom (and I am a woman, btw). Do you realize how many children died before the age of 8? The number who die before the age of accountability, I am pretty sure, outnumber the total number of members in the organized Church of God for all eras up to this time. That may change during the millennium. Add to that all those that have diseases that preclude them from the test of mortality and that is a lot of souls. Add to that all those that accept the gospel who didn't have a chance to accept the teachings while here in mortality who will accept it and now you nor I have any idea of the ratio of men to women in the Celestial Kingdom. I would have a hard time imaging after all those delusions in numbers that even if there were a few left over women it wouldn't allow for maybe 1% of all men to have more than one wife. But really we do not know that.

[Seminarysnoozer]

Just my opinion, but if Eve was cursed with pregnancy in Eden - seems like pregnancy is the cursed way to have children - not to say getting pregnant is a horrible thing to do, it is wonderful, and necessary part of the process, but I think our bonds with a Heavenly Family will be formed through covenants - perhaps there will be some physical part to it, such as physically forming our new bodies somehow, who knows - perhaps I cling to the idea of a monogamous relationship too tightly, thinking that somehow within all the bonds that we have with all the billions of other beings out there, we will each have one person - one bond - that is unique from all the others?

I am with you 100%.

Everything in this world is "cursed", it is fallen and corrupted including our own bodies. All this corruption will turn to dust. The only thing saved are those things that are spiritually bound and the things written in our hearts.

People outside the LDS faith really have a hard time separating the concept of who we really are and that currently we are dual beings of both body and spirit. Our spiritual heritage is different from our physical heritage, at least for now. Jesus being the only begotten is the only one who had both spiritual and physical divine heritage while here. We want to be like that some day. I am not my body, that is not who I really am. I am a child of God. My temporary stewardship is to be a daughter of my earthly parents and a mother to my children and I take that stewardship very seriously. But like all stewardship, I can't claim it as my own, it is a stewardship. If God sees fit to reward me with my current stewardship and add to it, that will just depend on my spiritual worthiness.

[Bensalem]

I am still not sure of your use of the word perfect. There are other people who are sinless who have lived in this life, at least as far as I know. What sin does the person born with trisomy 18 have, or trisomy 21? What sin does the person who dies before the age of 8 have? Perfect, perfected and sinless are not always interchangeable terms.

If Jesus was completely perfect (in the 'matured' sense of the word, meaning no further steps to take for advancement) upon birth then why did He not start His mission on Earth from day number one, why would He have to wait until He was 30 years old? Why does it say that he matured in the eyes of man and God? Why would He have to fast 40 days and nights prior to His mission? Wouldn't He already be spiritually prepared for such a thing?

The doctrine of the Church is that Christ was the only sinless person to ever walk the face of the earth as a mortal man. I assume they don't consider those who may be, for medical reasons, not accountable for their condition. The requirements being fully accountable and also sinless.

[Bensalem]

This is not LDS doctrine, this is your opinion. I have never seen such doctrine. I am open to the possibility of being wrong and if so, please tell me where you got such information.

We have no knowledge, as far as I know, of polygamy existing in the Eternal realms. I would have a hard time believing there is any shortage of men in the Celestial Kingdom (and I am a woman, btw). Do you realize how many children died before the age of 8? The number who die before the age of accountability, I am pretty sure, outnumber the total number of members in the organized Church of God for all eras up to this time. That may change during the millennium. Add to that all those that have diseases that preclude them from the test of mortality and that is a lot of souls. Add to that all those that accept the gospel who didn't have a chance to accept the teachings while here in mortality who will accept it and now you nor I have any idea of the ratio of men to women in the Celestial Kingdom. I would have a hard time imaging after all those delusions in numbers that even if there were a few left over women it wouldn't allow for maybe 1% of all men to have more than one wife. But really we do not know that.

I'm thinking of the practice of marrying the wife of a died brother (as recorded in the OT) being carried over to the Millennium reign and into eternity. I believe more men will end up spiritually died than women. Couple that with Isaiah 13:12, "I will make men scarcer than pure gold, human life scarcer than the gold of Ophir." The Book of Ruth also presents the doctrine, which may not be preached in the LDS church but surely exists as it did in the days of old. Edited July 18, 2012 by Bensalem

[bytor2112]

I'll have to be more blunt; the concept of Jesus taking a bride in this mortal life is offensive to me. Why would perfection take on imperfection? What purpose is there in having this gossip floating around? Our doctrine of eternal marriage being a requirement for attaining the highest exaltation, as Christ surely has or will obtain, does not require an earthly marriage at the time Christ was on earth.

Well, Christ had to work out HIS own salvation and grew from grace to grace....I don't find it offensive at all the idea that Christ may have been married and had a family. It seems fitting that HE being the only begotten of the Great Elohim and Mary.....might follow a similar pattern.

[Bensalem]

Well, Christ had to work out HIS own salvation and grew from grace to grace....I don't find it offensive at all the idea that Christ may have been married and had a family. It seems fitting that HE being the only begotten of the Great Elohim and Mary.....might follow a similar pattern.

Could you please explain why a sinless Christ would have "to work out HIS own salvation"?

Salvation is the rescue from having to pay the debt of your own sin. Christ redeems us; He required no redemption.

Never mind the fact that earthly marriage for Jesus was never articulated to be the will of the Father. Christ's mission was to do the will of Father in regards to the Plan of Salvation through the act of atonement and he accomplished it.

An earthly marriage does not follow the pattern set by the miracle between Elohim and Mary. That example will no doubt be followed by the Priesthood and some other 'Mary' on some other planet when Christ's own son will become the Only Begotten and Savior of that population of souls, who have not yet even been organized in a future premortal creation.

[Seminarysnoozer]

I'm thinking of the practice of marrying the wife of a died brother (as recorded in the OT) being carried over to the Millennium reign and into eternity. I believe more men will end up spiritually died than women. Couple that with Isaiah 13:12, "I will make men scarcer than pure gold, human life scarcer than the gold of Ophir." The Book of Ruth also presents the doctrine, which may not be preached in the LDS church but surely exists as it did in the days of old.

In our scriptures it says in Isaiah 13: 12 " 12 I will make a man more precious than fine gold; even a man than the golden wedge of Ophir." When cross referenced it is easily seen that the reference here is to the worth of souls, both men and women, of course. It is similar to the parable of the lost sheep or lost coin. As in Mosiah 28:3 "Now they were desirous that salvation should be declared to every creature, for they could not bear that any human soul should perish; yea, even the very thoughts that any soul should endure endless torment did cause them to quake and tremble."

The more modern speech from our leaders regarding this subject are similar to this one, "We believe that marriage is between one man and one woman. However, in biblical and more modern times, polygamy (or plural marriage) has been practiced when God has directed it for specific purposes (see Jacob 2:27, 30). This is why Church leaders selectively authorized some plural marriages in the 19th century for about 50 years. It was officially discontinued in 1890 when President Wilford Woodruff directed that no more such marriages should take place. The state of monogamy (one man, one woman) has been the Church’s teaching on marriage ever since.

Today, we oppose the practice of polygamy. Groups who practice it now are not associated with The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, and any person practicing polygamy cannot be a member of the Church."

The point is that it has always been discussed as an Earthly practice for specific earthly purposes. You are trying to extend it into the eternal realm and I have never seen that part of our doctrine, because it isn't. Your idea of fewer men in the heavens also is unfounded.

Here it is from the main source, the Lord, found in Jacob "27 Wherefore, my brethren, hear me, and hearken to the word of the Lord: For there shall not any man among you have save it be one wife; and concubines he shall have none;" Personally, I try not to make my views contrary to those of the Lord.

[Seminarysnoozer]

Salvation is the rescue from having to pay the debt of your own sin. Christ redeems us; He required no redemption.

Christ redeems us from the effects of the Fall as well as sin. If you are admitting that He was mortal then you are agreeing that He was also under the effect of the Fall and therefore needs to overcome that effect Himself. There is no need for a Savior without the Fall.

[Seminarysnoozer]

Never mind the fact that earthly marriage for Jesus was never articulated to be the will of the Father. Christ's mission was to do the will of Father in regards to the Plan of Salvation through the act of atonement and he accomplished it.

How do you know all the will of the Father? It may not have been articulated to us. I know we don't have 40 days and nights worth of articulated information in the Bible of Christs communion with God. That is a long time ... my husband only took me on a 2 week honeymoon.

[mordorbund]

I struggle to understand the argument that a married (to a mortal) Jesus is somehow sullied or less-than-god. He had the full mortal experience. He ate, he sweat, I'm certain he defecated. I don't think these profane activities degraded him any. Marrying a mortal is certainly not very god-like (in a modern-traditional sense, older myths have such trysts all the time), but neither is death by torture (which even the older myths generally avoid (well, excepting a token corn-king))!

And of course the Atonement is the ultimate in commingling the unworthy with the worthy. The sinless God was spiritually raped by your transgressions. So I don't see any issues on the "but she's not worthy" front.

Regarding the general notion that we should either come out in open opposition to the teaching or fully embrace it, I'm afraid that can't be done. It hasn't been revealed to us one way or the other. And that absence of public revelation leaves room for both doctrines (Jesus was(n't) married). The arguments in favor of a married, mortal Jesus is

1) that being sealed to a spouse is required for exaltation

2) such sealing can only be performed in this life (otherwise we wouldn't have to do it for the dead), and

3) Jesus has received his exaltation

The classic supporting example is that Jesus still had to get baptized, despite being sinless, and despite being the head of his own church. Additionally, early apostles have openly speculated that Jesus was married - and what's more - to more than one woman!

If you feel the need to witness to Reverend Moon, you may want to leave the whole marriage issue out of it and remind him that Jesus told Pilate that the time of his death would be Christ's choosing, not Pilate's. We additionally have the advantage of the Joseph Smith Translation sharing Christ's final mortal words, "Father, it is finished, thy will is done." So I don't think he left any portion of his mortal mission unfinished.

Edited July 20, 2012 by mordorbund

[Bensalem]

In our scriptures it says in Isaiah 13: 12 " 12 I will make a man more precious than fine gold; even a man than the golden wedge of Ophir." When cross referenced it is easily seen that the reference here is to the worth of souls, both men and women, of course. It is similar to the parable of the lost sheep or lost coin. As in Mosiah 28:3 "Now they were desirous that salvation should be declared to every creature, for they could not bear that any human soul should perish; yea, even the very thoughts that any soul should endure endless torment did cause them to quake and tremble."

I am familiar with the discrepancy between my quote, which comes from the Jerusalem Bible, Doubleday & Company, 1966 and the King James translation. I am also familiar with the LDS doctrine that the bible is the word of God so long as it is translated correctly. The whole of Isaiah 13 in all bibles is a dire warning against the modern spiritual Babylon we live in. The chapter is Messianic in nature and applicable to His second coming in glory. It also gives us a view of what those who die before the second coming will come to face outside of salvation in Christ.

Your “worth of souls” interpretation does not fit within the Oracle of destruction foretold in the chapter. Let me give you a feel for the mercilessness of our Christ reported by Isaiah:

“On a bare hill hoist a signal,

sound the war cry.

Beckon them to come

to the Nobles’ Gate.

I, for my part, issue orders

to my sacred warriors,

I summon my knights to serve my anger,

my proud champions.

Listen! A rumbling in the mountains

like a great crowd.

Listen! The din of kingdoms,

of nations mustering.

It is Yahweh Sabaoth

marshalling the troops for battle.

They come from a distant country,

from the far horizons,

Yahweh and the instruments of his fury

to lay the whole earth waste.

How! For the day of Yahweh is near,

bringing devastation from Shaddai.

At this, every arm falls limp…

The heart of each man fails him,

they are terrified,

pangs and pains seize them,

they writhe like a woman in labor.

They look at one another

with feverish faces.

The day of Yahweh is coming, merciless,

with wrath and fierce anger,

to reduce the earth to desert

and root out sinners from it.

For the stars of the sky and Orion

shall not let their light shine;

the sun shall be dark when it rises,

and the moon not shed her light.

I will punish the world for its evil-doing,

and the wicked for their crimes,

to put an end to the pride of arrogant men

and humble the pride of despots.

I will make men scarcer than pure gold,

human life scarcer than the gold of Ophir.

This is why I am going to shake the heavens –

and make the earth reel from its place,

before the wrath of Yahweh Sabaoth,

the day when his anger flares” (Isaiah 13:1-13)

[Bensalem]

Christ redeems us from the effects of the Fall as well as sin. If you are admitting that He was mortal then you are agreeing that He was also under the effect of the Fall and therefore needs to overcome that effect Himself. There is no need for a Savior without the Fall.

The effects of the Fall were the introduction of mortality (physical death) and the risk of remaining separated from God (spiritual death). Salvation resolves only the issue of spiritual death; we remain subject to physical death. Salvation allows for our eternal life, but only after mortality. Only at Christ's second coming will mortality be ended. As described in scriptures, there remains the example of translation as a means for us to avoid the pains of physical death.

Christ said he had the ability to give his life and take it up again. Eternal life was already his and he required no redemption. So his work in the atonement was solely for our benefit.

Edited July 20, 2012 by Bensalem

[Bensalem]

How do you know all the will of the Father? It may not have been articulated to us. I know we don't have 40 days and nights worth of articulated information in the Bible of Christs communion with God. That is a long time ... my husband only took me on a 2 week honeymoon.

Granted, I do not know what Jesus knew of his Father's will. But I do know that an earthly marriage for Jesus was not articulated to us through scripture. And I know that the warning against the invention of doctrine was articulated. It is one thing to say that marriage is required for anyone (including Jesus) to attain the highest glory. It is another to say that Jesus must therefore have married while on earth.

We still save no witness of a gloried male/female pair.

Why would Jesus, knowing of his own promised glorification, the glorification of the Church, and the glorification of Israel, look for a human wife when eventually he would have the pick of the Kingdom?

[Bensalem]

I struggle to understand the argument that a married (to a mortal) Jesus is somehow sullied or less-than-god.

It goes to his lesson of service to God above all earthly considerations. Same as has been used to justify celibate service in other Christian religions. No record of it's necessity in scripture or it's occurrence in history leaves me to discern that it wasn't needed and didn't happen.

I struggle with why we should entertain such gossip.

[Seminarysnoozer]

Granted, I do not know what Jesus knew of his Father's will. But I do know that an earthly marriage for Jesus was not articulated to us through scripture. And I know that the warning against the invention of doctrine was articulated. It is one thing to say that marriage is required for anyone (including Jesus) to attain the highest glory. It is another to say that Jesus must therefore have married while on earth.

We still save no witness of a gloried male/female pair.

Why would Jesus, knowing of his own promised glorification, the glorification of the Church, and the glorification of Israel, look for a human wife when eventually he would have the pick of the Kingdom?

To clarify, I have never said that He has or hasn't married. I have only questioned your ability to know for certain He hasn't.

Jesus, like God, does not look at us as "human" like you are suggesting. They both know of our divine heritage and see us not as man sees. My spirit is the real me. The combination of my eternal spirit and the temporary body is how I am currently but this is a temporary state and depending on how well I do I do not have to carry any of the corrupted traits I temporarily have while here into the next life. Jesus and God understand that plan well.

So if your really want to ask the question then maybe you should reword it a little .... Why would Jesus, knowing of His own promised glorification, the glorification of the Church, and the glorification of Israel, look for a Celestial wife (at least one who is also promised with similar glory) when eventually he would inherit a Kingdom organized in the form of eternal families?