Why would anyone object to the idea that Jesus was married?

[applepansy]

I don't know about Jesus needing to be exalted as we are. Jesus was sinless. He didn't come here so he can progress as we are. He is already progressed. His mission was to atone for our sins, not to atone for his.

Just my opinion.

Yes Jesus was without sin yet He was baptized. So, why not married too?

[Maureen]

Yes Jesus was without sin yet He was baptized. So, why not married too?

But being married means to support a wife and probably children. There's a good chance he knew he wouldn't live a long life and therefore understood his mission was to be one of sacrifice.

M.

[applepansy]

But being married means to support a wife and probably children. There's a good chance he knew he wouldn't live a long life and therefore understood his mission was to be one of sacrifice.

M.

And maybe he wasn't married long enough to have children? Just a thought.

In the culture he lived in supporting his mother was important too. Yet he asked his brother to do that from the cross.

Of course he understood His mission to be one of Sacrifice. I also believe he set the example in everything. He did in baptism, why not marriage in the new and everlasting covenant? (rhetorical)

Edited July 21, 2012 by applepansy

[annewandering]

Jesus was baptized because it is an ordinance necessary to enter the Celestial Kingdom. He was over the age of accountability therefore had to be baptized. Its the same for everyone. There is more than one reason to be baptized. One is to be cleansed of sin.

Jesus Christ | Mormon.org

Baptism is a covenant of commitment to follow Jesus which is in essence following God.

Baptism

Baptism is also a symbol of death and resurrection as explained in the previous link.

Baptism adds our name to membership in His church. Would be odd if the head of the church didnt belong to it.

We know He obeyed the commandment to be baptized. Why would He ignore the covenant of marriage?

[Bensalem]

Why would any Latter-day Saint object to the idea that Jesus was married? I can think of only two reasons:

1. The Latter-day Saint is a recent convert from a religion that considers the idea of a married Jesus to be somehow sacreligious. (Which raises the question: Why would ANY Christian object to the idea of Jesus being married, given that the Bible clearly teaches that marriage is a holy state and approved of God? But that is a subject for another thread.)

2. The Latter-day Saint is hypersensitive about raising yet another objection to Mormonism in the minds of the aforementioned Christians who would be scandalized by the idea.

But of course, it is not LDS doctrine that Jesus was married (nor, let me add, is it LDS doctrine that Jesus was unmarried). So if someone gets bent out of shape over the mere idea that Jesus could have been married and condemns the Church for not explicitly denying this possibility (which denial would itself be wholly unBiblical), I don't see how that is an issue the Saints need to worry about.

Rather, it seems that some Latter-day Saints find the idea of a married Jesus objectionable. Another thread has mentioned this, and it seems (though I could be wrong) that some Saints on this very list might object to the idea. I would be very interested to understand what the objection is.

As for me:

1) Does not apply. I have been a latter-day saint for more than a decade.

2) Does not apply. I have admitted it may be a possibility.

My objections are (from that other post):

Link provided for reference.

It is pure gossip. It is not LDS doctrine. It is irrelevant to the gospel of redemption.

It is unsupported in scripture, meaning it was never articulated as the will of the Father.

It distracts from the stated, scripturally supported, mission of Christ.

It was not required to complete His mission of the Atonement.

It minimizes the more significant doctrine of God and Church, which is supported in scripture.

For example, the concept of the Body of Christ in union with it's Head.

It adds the dilemma of Christ's perfection (sinless nature) taking on imperfection (sinful wife).

It ignores the fact that Israel had not yet been established, much less gathered.

It ignores the fact that the covenants of eternal marriage had not yet been established.

(to be continued)

Edited July 21, 2012 by Bensalem

[Bensalem]

(continued from)

The historical reality of Christianity, one of self-sacrifice and austere, even celibate, living in service to God, reflects more the nature of Christ. He taught that leaving all earthly connections to go out and preach the Word was an appropriate and honorable venture. This also happens to match perfectly with what LDS missionaries go off and do before finding a bride for the eternities.

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

I think the latter-day revelations, which brought us the covenant of eternal marriage in the mid-1800's, completes the historical reality of God's timeline in progression and gives our claim of the restoration and the LDS Church itself more validity.

In other words, Christ and His Church (the body of Christ) are progressing together.

(to be continued)

Edited July 22, 2012 by Bensalem

[annewandering]

Interesting take, Bensalem. My take is that the church and every piece of the gospel, including the atonement, are directed to making it possible for us to have an eternal life with our family, specifically our spouse, to continue to make that eternal life available to more intelligences, same as our heavenly parents have done for us.

[Bensalem]

(continued from)

Christ declared that he does nothing except that which is commanded by his Father. Commandments come by way of scripture (not speculation) and since the command to take a mortal wife is lacking in scripture, it contradicts Christ's own words.

Christ's sinless nature extended from premortality and continued in pure obedience to the Father. This obedience was manifested in His mission of the atonement, whereby he 'betroths' us in salvation. The promise of redemption laid the foundation of the higher covenant of consecration in Christ. Consecration represents the 'marriage' of our united wills.

(to be continued)

[Bensalem]

Interesting take, Bensalem. My take is that the church and every piece of the gospel, including the atonement, are directed to making it possible for us to have an eternal life with our family, specifically our spouse, to continue to make that eternal life available to more intelligences, same as our heavenly parents have done for us.

I agree. As He said, "...this is my work and my glory—to bring to pass the immortality and eternal life of man". (Moses 1:39)

This includes all that you have listed. It also includes the glorification of all those individuals into a Church, the nation of Israel, and a community united (married/consecrated) to Him. It is not just about individual progression, but encompasses the societal progression of His kingdom as well.

[Bensalem]

(continued from)

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?

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.

(to be continued)

Edited July 22, 2012 by Bensalem

[beefche]

Bensalem, why are you posting as a serial?

[Bensalem]

Bensalem, why are you posting as a serial?

I'm answering the open poster's question and thought it would be easier this way.

[annewandering]

I object to the 'pick of the kingdom' idea. Not sure why but it makes me think of a wife marketplace with all the women lined up hoping to be chosen. It might be hard to believe but not every woman would want to be married to Jesus.

[NightSG]

It might be hard to believe but not every woman would want to be married to Jesus.

I've known plenty of women who rushed to marry guys that thought they could walk on water. How many would line up for one who could prove it?

[annewandering]

I've known plenty of women who rushed to marry guys that thought they could walk on water. How many would line up for one who could prove it?

Too many. Still not everyone. Probably not even most. Reminds me of a really nice guy I met in college. Later, I heard stories about him on his mission and was not surprised in the least. He lowered his voice when he gave talks and the room became completely silent hanging on his every word. Last I heard he was in SL unmarried. I liked him but could never live up to him and he wasnt even Jesus.

[Bensalem]

I object to the 'pick of the kingdom' idea. Not sure why but it makes me think of a wife marketplace with all the women lined up hoping to be chosen. It might be hard to believe but not every woman would want to be married to Jesus.

Sorry about the visual that concerns you. Maybe I should have said, Jesus will be able to propose to the worthiest of Israel.

[Bensalem]

(continued from)

The wedding at Cana and the miracle of water being turned to wine, which marked the beginning of Christ’s ministry with his apostles, supports the concept of His betrothing the world with the promise of salvation through the sacrament. It symbolizes his purity being converted to wine, his blood in Christian services.

Baptism makes the promise sure. The gift of the Holy Ghost makes the union sure. We become Christ’s spirit children in the resurrection.

At the end of Christ’s earthly ministry (Acts 1:6-7) the coming restoration is foretold; and in Joseph Smith’s first vision it is fulfilled. The restoration brings the ordinances of exaltation and allows for the progression of our glory in the priesthood through eternal marriage. It also brings the covenant of our consecration to Christ, representing the eternal union we share.

Revelation to the LDS church converts the wine of the sacrament back to water symbolizing the return of Christ’s purity and fullness of the gospel.

This justification is provided in support of the irrelevance of an earthly marriage for Christ in light of the progression of his church through history. He progresses with us and we progress because of Him. The Church’s progression is incomplete until Christ’s second coming glorifies us as He is glorified.

I’ll leave it at that.

[annewandering]

I have never given any thought to Jesus being concerned with building a society. He didnt atone for any society. He atoned for each of us individually.

[Bensalem]

I have never given any thought to Jesus being concerned with building a society. He didnt atone for any society. He atoned for each of us individually.

He atoned for the world and builds a sanctified society in the Church. The social order of heaven is centered on the Israel he is building in Christ. It is what the second coming is all about. It is reflected in the doctrine of the gathering of Israel in the LDS Church.

Edited July 22, 2012 by Bensalem

[annewandering]

The Plan of Salvation is about each individual and family. The rest is byproduct. Good but not the focus. To bring to pass the eternal life of man is not the eternal life of society. It is interesting how you seem to distance Jesus's purpose and to generalize it to mankind as a whole instead of personal salvation.. We obviously have two very different views.

[Bensalem]

The Plan of Salvation is about each individual and family. The rest is byproduct. Good but not the focus. To bring to pass the eternal life of man is not the eternal life of society. It is interesting how you seem to distance Jesus's purpose and to generalize it to mankind as a whole instead of personal salvation.. We obviously have two very different views.

No. I think I have two views and you have only one. Of course Christ is about personal salvation. Christians have been stressing that for 2000 years, to the point that we have over a thousand denominations of Christianity. I am trying to stress the importance of Christianity's unity not individualism. So I speak of the larger community of a glorified Israel.

Israel is not the "byproduct"; it's gathering has been the focus of scripture since the second book of the Bible.

[Anddenex]

Commandments come by way of scripture (not speculation) and since the command to take a mortal wife is lacking in scripture, it contradicts Christ's own words.

Although I understand what you are meaning, I think, one needs to be careful when saying "the command to take a mortal wife is lacking in scripture."

I agree, the command "take a wife" is no where said in scripture, however in the garden of Eden we know that the Lord said, "It is not meet that man should be alone..." And a woman was provided that man should not be alone. We know Adam and Eve were married. I would venture to say this meant for Christ also, that it was not meet for him to be alone either.

There is another commandment the Lord provides, "Multiply and Replenish the earth." This is a commandment given to all mortal beings.

The only way a person, righteously, and without sin, could multiply and replenish the earth, is through the avenue of marriage.

So the question which comes to my mind, when the Lord said he was to fulfill all righteousness, did this righteousness include "Multiplying and Replenishing" the earth? If so, then the covenant of marriage is the only way this could have been fulfilled.

As we all know, this isn't doctrine, however there isn't anything wrong with asking questions. Without a question, revelation is typically not obtained.

[Bensalem]

Although I understand what you are meaning, I think, one needs to be careful when saying "the command to take a mortal wife is lacking in scripture."

I agree, the command "take a wife" is no where said in scripture, however in the garden of Eden we know that the Lord said, "It is not meet that man should be alone..." And a woman was provided that man should not be alone. We know Adam and Eve were married. I would venture to say this meant for Christ also, that it was not meet for him to be alone either.

There is another commandment the Lord provides, "Multiply and Replenish the earth." This is a commandment given to all mortal beings.

The only way a person, righteously, and without sin, could multiply and replenish the earth, is through the avenue of marriage.

So the question which comes to my mind, when the Lord said he was to fulfill all righteousness, did this righteousness include "Multiplying and Replenishing" the earth? If so, then the covenant of marriage is the only way this could have been fulfilled.

As we all know, this isn't doctrine, however there isn't anything wrong with asking questions. Without a question, revelation is typically not obtained.

I guess you're saying that Jesus might have taken an earthly wife in fulfillment of the earlier commandment to "multiply and replenish the earth". You may be right, but to me such a singular and personal act seems trivial in view of his larger mission of instigating a worldwide spiritual rebirth.

Earthly marriage may be "the only way a person...could multiply and replenish the earth...", but Jesus was the Word of God by which we become Christ's children through baptism into His Church. So in the LDS Church His spirit children are multiplying with each new convert and replenishing the earth with truth revealed by the Holy Ghost.

It just seems more majestic and encompassing a path for the Son of God to complete.

[Bensalem]

In the culture he lived in, men were married by the age of 18 - 20. The Lord was 30 when he began his ministry. It would make more sense if he grew in favor of men and the Lord that he was married at or around a similar age.

That is probably the best justification for an earthly marriage I have seen. Although the wording of your last sentence is confusing; Jesus was our Lord, and the bible says there was nothing attractive about him (maybe being single at 30 was one of them).

[Bensalem]

It should be noted there is a distinction to be made between:

1) Objection to the idea that Christ was married.

2) Objection to teaching that Christ was married as an official position.

The first doesn't apply to me, the second I could see getting my druthers up over depending on if the situation has me caring enough to make some sort of correction, such as say a Gospel Doctrine teacher going on about it as if it were official. To my knowledge while various Church leaders have suggested it was the case, officially speaking, the Church has a null position.

Quote:

Dale Bills, a spokesman for The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, said in a statement released Tuesday:

"The belief that Christ was married has never been official church doctrine. It is neither sanctioned nor taught by the church. While it is true that a few church leaders in the mid-1800s expressed their opinions on the matter, it was not then, and is not now, church doctrine."

Link: LDS do not endorse claims in 'Da Vinci' | Deseret News

Ask it shall be given unto you. Seems I have received my validation. Thanks for rounding it up and posting it.