Glory Days (for time and all eternity)

[mordorbund]

It goes to his lesson of service to God above all earthly considerations.

And yet we believe that many "earthly considerations" lead to our salvation. The ground is "cursed for [our] sake". Work and toil provide us with the opportunity to learn the law of the harvest, as well as exercising honesty with our fellow man.

Additionally, we have the example of Jesus using his powers to liquor up a wedding party. Do you maintain that such an act was essential to the Christ's ministry? (not just an aid to it, but essential?) Or was Jesus participating and aiding an earthly consideration? In fact many of his miracles can seen in this light.

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'm a little lost at parsing your sentence here. I think you're saying you think Jesus marriage wasn't needed and didn't happen because of a lack of scriptural record of it.

I already shared with you the "necessity in scripture" and it looks like you completely ignored it. In order to be exalted, a man (and thus, even a Christ-man) "must enter into this order of the priesthood [meaning the new and everlasting covenant of marriage];And if he does not, he cannot" receive exaltation.

And while it is true that the Bible does not record Jesus' marriage, neither does it record Adam and Eve's forced barrenness in the Garden of Eden or much of Enoch's ministry. We get this additional information from modern revelation. Much has been revealed to us and canonized into scripture, and we leave the door open that God "will yet reveal many great and important things".

I struggle with why we should entertain such gossip.

Then why did YOU bring it up? Attempts to unauthoritatively stifle a particular belief often becomes a golden proselyting opportunity for proponents. Perhaps you should study the Streisand Effect a bit.

As I said before, there is room in the currently revealed gospel for either stance, so I don't think either side can properly denounce the other view as false doctrine.

[Bensalem]

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?

I would rather you answer my question as it stands, putting yourself in Jesus' place as being obedient to his Father and focused on the Atonement, which brings the salvation required for an exalted marriage to be possible; remembering that the doctrine of his first appearance was service above all else toward the spreading of the gospel of repentance and of baptism in his Church.

The whole eternal marriage thing came through revelation almost 2000 years after his death. Joseph Smith brought the whole progression thing into relevance. Our own scriptures teach that Jesus grow from grace to grace. Why don't we honor that idea as Christ moves from glory to glory?

The idea of him taking an earthly bride seems nothing more than gossip.

Why would Christ drink from the corrupt well of Israel when the new and restored Israel was just around the cornerstone of his first church. He had to build a church first, then had to restore it to full functionality before building up the nation of Israel, and finally will glorify his work as a paradisaical earth takes shape under his 1000 year reign. Let him pick a wife then from an Israel and a people glorified as he is.

[Bensalem]

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.

How can you even suggest I am a "witness to Reverend Moon"? I called his doctrine false in the OP.

Likewise, I never argued that Jesus didn't fulfill the will of the Father in every way. But no one has given me any evidence that it was the Father's will that he should be married to a wife on earth. My argument is that we should not add to the Father's will.

[Dravin]

How can you even suggest I am a "witness to Reverend Moon"? I called his doctrine false in the OP.

He said "a witness to Reverend Moon", not "a witness for/of Reverand Moon". It's a one or two letter difference depending on how you look at it, but a difference with signifigance.

[Bensalem]

He said "a witness to Reverend Moon", not "a witness for/of Reverand Moon". It's a one or two letter difference depending on how you look at it, but a difference with signifigance.

What does it mean to you to be a witness to Christ? Because to me it means I am a witness for and of Christ.

[Bensalem]

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).

You left out, isn't yet married, which is what I am proposing as the most likely possibility, due to the fact that there isn't yet a glorified Israel.

[mordorbund]

How can you even suggest I am a "witness to Reverend Moon"? I called his doctrine false in the OP.

I acknowledged you calling out Reverend Moon's doctrine as false. The apostles witness to the world that Jesus is the Christ; as such, they are witness of Christ (or even witnesses for Christ). I used the phrase "witness to" in the sense that you would testify to or preach to, not in favor of.

Now re-read my post and see if that last paragraph isn't friendlier and more useful.

[Dravin]

What does it mean to you to be a witness to Christ? Because to me it means I am a witness for and of Christ.

He didn't say be a witness to Christ, he said be a witness to Reverend Moon.

Edited July 20, 2012 by Dravin

[mordorbund]

But no one has given me any evidence that it was the Father's will that he should be married to a wife on earth. My argument is that we should not add to the Father's will.

We should not add to the Father's will by speculating that Jesus was married in mortality, but

You left out, isn't yet married, which is what I am proposing as the most likely possibility, due to the fact that there isn't yet a glorified Israel.

we can openly speculate that 1) he will indeed get married, 2) to a member of glorified Israel.

I don't object to your opinion on whether or not Jesus was married in mortality; I do object that you think there should be a definitive stance on it.

[Bensalem]

Then why did YOU bring it up? Attempts to unauthoritatively stifle a particular belief often becomes a golden proselyting opportunity for proponents. Perhaps you should study the Streisand Effect a bit.

As I said before, there is room in the currently revealed gospel for either stance, so I don't think either side can properly denounce the other view as false doctrine.

I only denounced it as gossip.

I haven't heard or read anyone present what I am presenting, which ties the marriage of Christ with the gospel's progressive revelations about eternal marriage. This 'coincidentally' corresponds to the historic development of Christianity and gives additional justification to restoration of the Church as a precursor to the glorification of Israel and Her families.

Just trying to get everyone to the right marriage theology.

Edited July 20, 2012 by Bensalem

[Bensalem]

We should not add to the Father's will by speculating that Jesus was married in mortality, but

we can openly speculate that 1) he will indeed get married, 2) to a member of glorified Israel.

I don't object to your opinion on whether or not Jesus was married in mortality; I do object that you think there should be a definitive stance on it.

I'm shooting for a corrected stance; verification must come from the prophets of the LDS church.

[Bensalem]

He didn't say be a witness to Christ, he said be a witness to Reverend Moon. You're not exactly batting a thousand on careful reading here.

Same to you. Try this clearer question about you slitting hairs between the words "to", "for", and "of". What is the difference between being the witness "to", "for", and "of" (insert name)?

He said I was "a witness to Rev. Moon". To me that means I support and have evidence (witness) of Rev. Moon's doctrine.

[Bensalem]

I acknowledged you calling out Reverend Moon's doctrine as false. The apostles witness to the world that Jesus is the Christ; as such, they are witness of Christ (or even witnesses for Christ). I used the phrase "witness to" in the sense that you would testify to or preach to, not in favor of.

Now re-read my post and see if that last paragraph isn't friendlier and more useful.

Well that explains it, friend.

[Dravin]

Same to you. Try this clearer question about you slitting hairs between the words "to", "for", and "of". What is the difference between being the witness "to", "for", and "of" (insert name)?

Of/for: You're witnessing of or for Reverend Moon's doctrines or positions.

Example 1: I am a witness of the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

Example 2: I am a witness for Christ.

Neither of these have to do with one bearing witness to/directed at Christ or bearing witness to/directed at the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

To: You're being a witness of something to Reverend Moon.

Example 3: I am a witness to you.

You're bearing witness (or will I suppose) of something to/directed at the individual. Your apparent parsing would make:

Example 4: I am a witness to you of the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

Go from it's meaning of you directing a witness of the Gospel of Jesus Christ to the individual to some weird mash-up that comes out something like, "I'm bearing witness of the truthfulness of you of/about the Gospel of Jesus Christ."

And it's not splitting hairs, it's basic reading comprehension.

Edited July 20, 2012 by Dravin

[Bensalem]

I'm a little lost at parsing your sentence here. I think you're saying you think Jesus marriage wasn't needed and didn't happen because of a lack of scriptural record of it.

Yes. And that Christian religious doctrine over the last 2000 years has justified celibacy as the highest form of devotion to God. I am saying that Jesus' total self-sacrifice would be better witnessed as an unmarried servant of the Father.

[Bensalem]

Of/for: You're witnessing of or for Reverend Moon's doctrines or positions.

Example 1: I am a witness of the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

Example 2: I am a witness for Christ.

Neither of these have to do with one bearing witness to Christ or bearing witness to the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

To: You're being a witness of something to Reverend Moon.

Example 3: I am a witness to you.

You're bearing witness of something to/directed at the individual. Your apparent parsing would make:

Example 4: I am a witness to you of the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

Go from it's meaning of you direction a witness of the Gospel of Jesus Christ to the individual to some weird mash-up that comes out something like, "I'm bearing witness of the truthfulness of you of/about the Gospel of Jesus Christ." Or if we really want to confuse the whole of/to distinction you're bearing witness of the truthfulness of the individual to the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

And it's not splitting hairs, it's basic reading comprehension.

Thanks for the English lesson.

Here is my gospel lesson to the world:

I am a witness to the truth;

I am a witness of the truth;

I am a witness for the truth.

Christ is the truth.

In a gospel context, I don't see a significant grammatical difference.

[Bensalem]

1) he will indeed get married,

2) to a member of glorified Israel.

I don't object to your opinion on whether or not Jesus was married in mortality; I do object that you think there should be a definitive stance on it.

1). Joseph Smith identified that his marriage is a requirement for his obtaining the highest glory.

2). The scriptures record Christ's unique relationship with His Church as a marriage (which hasn't happened yet).

I 'stance' in good company.

[Dravin]

Thanks for the English lesson.

Here is my gospel lesson to the world:

I am a witness to the truth;

I am a witness of the truth;

I am a witness for the truth.

Christ is the truth.

In a gospel context, I don't see a significant grammatical difference.

1) I am a witness to the truth - My witness is directed at the truth.

2) I am a witness of the truth - My witness is about the subject the truth.

3) I am a witness for the truth - My witness is on behalf of/in furtherance of the goals/desires/purposes of the truth.

Now lets go back to Reverend Moon:

1) I am a witness to Reverend Moon - My witness is directed at Reverend Moon.

2) I am a witness of Reverend Moon - My witness is of the subject Reverend Moon.

3) I am a witness for Reverend Moon - My witness is on behalf of/in furtherance of the goals/desires/purposes of Reverend Moon.

The similarity in the case of 'the truth' and 'of/for the truth' is a function of your use of your particular example instead of a distinct individual such as Reverend Moon, you're bearing a witness which is 'aimed' at the concept of the truth, which with the example the truth means what your saying is truth and thus can be claimed to be a witness of truth or in furtherance of the concept of truth.

Edited July 20, 2012 by Dravin

[Bensalem]

And yet we believe that many "earthly considerations" lead to our salvation. The ground is "cursed for [our] sake". Work and toil provide us with the opportunity to learn the law of the harvest, as well as exercising honesty with our fellow man.

Additionally, we have the example of Jesus using his powers to liquor up a wedding party. Do you maintain that such an act was essential to the Christ's ministry? (not just an aid to it, but essential?) Or was Jesus participating and aiding an earthly consideration? In fact many of his miracles can seen in this light.

First of all, I reject your assertion that Christ "(used) his powers to liquor up a wedding party"; the miracle was not an abuse of power, but his first sign just three days after the witness of his baptism. And yes, the wedding at Cana was essential to his ministry. Not only did it show the disciples his power, it validated to them his authority.

More significant to me as a latter-day saint is that this marks for Christianity, which equated wine with his blood in sacramental services for centuries, a new beginning of using water to represent his blood in the sacrament as worshiped in the LDS church.

Neither is it insignificant that a marriage setting is used since Christ betrothed the world with the promise of salvation. The miracle is a sign foretelling of his purity (the water) being turned into the wine that religions have got drunk on.

It is the restored church, the LDS Church, which beings back the purity of his blood (now water) in our sacrament service.

[Bensalem]

1) I am a witness to the truth - My witness is directed at the truth.

2) I am a witness of the truth - My witness is about the subject the truth.

3) I am a witness for the truth - My witness is on behalf of/in furtherance of the goals/desires/purposes of truth.

Now lets go back to Reverend Moon:

1) I am a witness to Reverend Moon - My witness is directed at Reverend Moon.

2) I am a witness of Reverend Moon - My witness is of the subject Reverend Moon.

3) I am a witness for Reverend Moon - My witness is on behalf of/in furtherance of the goals/desires/purpose of Reverend Moon.

The similarity in the case of 'the truth' and 'of/for the truth' is a special function of your use of a concept instead of a distinct individual, you're bearing a witness which 'aimed' at the concept of the truth, which with the example truth means what your saying is truth and thus can be claimed to be a witness of truth or in furtherance of the concept of truth. It doesn't hold when talking about distinct individuals or objects.

Don't get silly on me.

Each of the three terms have several applications and they overlap with each other to the point that each can be used to essential mean the same thing. For example, "to" can be used to mean "for" as in "for the purpose of". You are applying it strictly to mean, "in the direction of" or as you say "directed at".

I don't want to play these silly games.

[Dravin]

Don't get silly on me.

Each of the three terms have several applications and they overlap with each other to the point that each can be used to essential mean the same thing. For example, "to" can be used to mean "for" as in "for the purpose of". You are applying it strictly to mean, "in the direction of" or as you say "directed at".

I don't want to play these silly games.

You're trying to make some sort of strange blur of the words to, for, and of and it just doesn't work as some sort of universal rule, not even within the caveat you tried to set of 'within a Gospel context'. Or do you honestly think, "The Holy Ghost will bear witness to you." means "The Holy Ghost will bear witness of you."?

Edited July 20, 2012 by Dravin

[Bensalem]

I already shared with you the "necessity in scripture" and it looks like you completely ignored it. In order to be exalted, a man (and thus, even a Christ-man) "must enter into this order of the priesthood [meaning the new and everlasting covenant of marriage];And if he does not, he cannot" receive exaltation.

And while it is true that the Bible does not record Jesus' marriage, neither does it record Adam and Eve's forced barrenness in the Garden of Eden or much of Enoch's ministry. We get this additional information from modern revelation. Much has been revealed to us and canonized into scripture, and we leave the door open that God "will yet reveal many great and important things".

I didn't ignore the necessity for his marriage and I am familiar with how it came into the LDS church. I am not contesting either.

The process is revelation comes, it is shared, it is validated, and then it becomes doctrine or canonized scripture. I have not deviated from that process; I remain patient in waiting for the latter two.

[Bensalem]

Then you shouldn't have started them by playing, "Well you clearly set a distinction between to and of/for, they obviously mean the same thing." You're trying to make some sort of strange blur of the words to, for, and of and it just doesn't work as some sort of universal rule, and as far as the context given in this thread is one case where it doesn't.

Don't claim to have a hard time with reading comprehension and then try argue it, it doesn't work well.

Not arguing grammar any more?

I think I made it clear that I use the three terms interchangeable, at least when if comes to the sentence in question, and that this is grammatically allowed.

Comprende, amigo?

[mordorbund]

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.

I'll have to be more blunt; the concept of Jesus taking a bride in this mortal life is offensive to me.

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.

I only denounced it as gossip.

Yes, I see that. You denounce it as offensive gossip that should go away or be validated, but really rejected because it hasn't been validated and was not a part of Christ's earthly mission.

But then at the same time we get to this:

I haven't heard or read anyone present what I am presenting, which ties the marriage of Christ with the gospel's progressive revelations about eternal marriage. This 'coincidentally' corresponds to the historic development of Christianity and gives additional justification to restoration of the Church as a precursor to the glorification of Israel and Her families.

Now let's apply your same standards to this not-so-random Internet quote. "Christ will be married literally after his metaphorical bride (the Church) has been cleansed." I wish it would go away or be validated. I reject as gossip that taking a physical wife is any part of Christ's mission or personal goal. He will also come "with healing in his wings", but I don't take that to mean that he will grow such appendages.

Just trying to get everyone to the right marriage theology.

Now in reality, I don't necessarily have much of a beef with your pet notion. It might be fun to discuss it's merits and shortcomings. But before we do that, I'll need you to acknowledge that your "marriage theology" is not binding on anyone else, or rather, it is as binding as the notion that Christ is eternally celibate or was married in mortality. I'm not trying to be a jerk here, I just need agreement on this point because I'm hearing an outright rejection of other speculation solely on the basis that you have your own preferred speculation.

[Dravin]

Not arguing grammar any more?

I think I made it clear that I use the three terms interchangeable, at least when if comes to the sentence in question, and that this is grammatically allowed.

Comprende, amigo?

You stated that within a gospel context, what ever that means, there is no difference between the words. Clearly isn't the case, but I suppose there isn't a word police to issue tickets.