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

[Vort]

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.

[annewandering]

I dont understand the objection myself. Married is something I enjoy very much. If I had my druthers everyone would be happily married and that includes Jesus.

[Guest]

Jesus married is fine with me - and I'm a Catholic convert.

But, I lean more to the idea that he is not married because I think that would have been a very important piece of the story and would have been mentioned in the Bible especially at his crucifixion. Well, okay, Mary Magdalene could have been it (although, I read somewhere on lds.org that the general authorities have denied that Jesus was married to Mary Magdalene - I think).

[Anddenex]

I am not sure either as to why anyone would object to Jesus being married. 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.

I am more inclined to believe that he was, due to the simple fact that he came to fulfill all righteousness. Could the Lord have fulfilled all righteousness, at least according to LDS doctrine, without marriage. Me personally, I believe not.

How could he show all people the right path, if he himself did not correctly follow ALL of the right path? How could he command people to marry if He Himself did not marry?

If the Lord isn't married, talk about the privilege someone will have to marry Him in the Temple. The Lord isn't exempt of this covenant just because He was the Lord.

I am taking bids if Christ isn't married. I will be the one to stand in for proxy.

[Dravin]

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.

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

[Guest]

Can you imagine what it would be like to be His wife? You would always be the one that's wrong.

[Anddenex]

Can you imagine what it would be like to be His wife? You would always be the one that's wrong.

There's no "LOL" button.

[Dravin]

Can you imagine what it would be like to be His wife? You would always be the one that's wrong.

Just ask your husband, he should be able to give you an idea of what it feels like.

Edited July 21, 2012 by Dravin

[Anddenex]

Just ask your Husband, he should be able to give you an idea of what it feels like.

Again, where is the "LOL" button on this one?

[Guest]

Dravin you almost made me wake my baby up! LOL!

[prisonchaplain]

Protestants and most Catholics would be loathe to think that the incarnate God of the universe would marry a mortal. Even though he was fully human, he was also God.

Just look to the controversy caused by the movie: The Last Temptation of Christ, to understand how difficult this idea is for us.

[durante_angelo]

I find it quite obvious that he is married.

- Is he our perfect example?

- Is he divine?

- Most importantly: Is he exalted?

What i'm thinking is, can you be an exalted divine being without being married?

[annewandering]

Whether He was married or not, He has to be married to be exalted. He is perfect but is still under the same laws the rest of us are under.

I wonder sometimes if He was married here. If he was and had children it is probably best we dont know. Knowing mankind those descendants would be made into a separate class of people.

He may have avoided the entire issue by just waiting and concentrating on His mission here.

[Convert55]

Prisonchaplain I appreciate your insights and realize the churning in your stomach you must be feeling when reading on this subject.

We have a scripture that says:

D&C 131: 1 In the celestial glory there are three heavens or degrees;

2 And in order to obtain the highest, a man must enter into this order of the priesthood [meaning the new and everlasting covenant of marriage];

3 And if he does not, he cannot obtain it

We have no scripture in the Bible, Book of Mormon, Doctrine and Covenants, or Pearl of Great Price that specifically states that Christ was or is married. People have used various scriptures to imply that He must be married because marriage is among our core beliefs. I will give one example of how we can imply that Christ is married. This implication is not as far as I know considered Mormon Doctrine. It is only me making an inference.

D&C 132 is one of our primary scriptures relating to the new and everlasting covenant, including the eternity of the marriage covenant. Verse 7 of D&C 132 does not mention marriage specifically but the verse is in the context of marriage.

7 And verily I say unto you, that the conditions of this law are these: All covenants, contracts, bonds, obligations, oaths, vows, performances, connections, associations, or expectations, that are not made and entered into and sealed by the Holy Spirit of promise, of him who is anointed, both as well for time and for all eternity, and that too most holy, by revelation and commandment through the medium of mine anointed, whom I have appointed on the earth to hold this power (and I have appointed unto my servant Joseph to hold this power in the last days, and there is never but one on the earth at a time on whom this power and the keys of this priesthood are conferred), are of no efficacy, virtue, or force in and after the resurrection from the dead; for all contracts that are not made unto this end have an end when men are dead.

Now, this verse has a large and confusing parenthetical insertion that if we take out we could read this verse like this

7 And verily I say unto you, that the conditions of this law are these: All covenants, contracts, bonds, obligations, oaths, vows, performances, connections, associations, or expectations, that are not made and entered into and sealed by the Holy Spirit of promise, … are of no efficacy, virtue, or force in and after the resurrection from the dead; for all contracts that are not made unto this end have an end when men are dead.

If what I have done is not misleading then we can ask, if covenants (the first one mentioned) are of no efficacy, virtue or force IN and AFTER the resurrection, then when are they efficacious? The only thing left is BEFORE. That is to say a person has to complete the covenant of marriage before they are resurrected. And we are still in compliance with Matthew 22:30

30 For in the resurrection they neither marry, nor are given in marriage, but are as the angels of God in heaven.

So, now we make an inference and say that Christ must be married. As far as I know it is not doctrinal. As Mormons we can look forward to further light and knowledge on the subject in the due time of the Lord. But I think we can agree that Christ is and always has been in full compliance with all of God the Father’s commandments.

[skoshmom]

Hi friends,

I am a Latter-Day Saint with a very strong testimony of the gospel. I believe all that I have been taught. Even though the church has not officially said that Christ was married, I can only look at all the things we've been taught that for me, indicates that our savior was married. When many people hear this, they instantly think sexual carnal things and to that I say poppycock. I also understand that he was addressed occasionally as Rabbi - a term only used for married men.

Obviously marriage is very sacred to us - for time and all eternity and ordained of our Heavenly Father. If it is that sacred to us, I can only imagine how sacred it must be to our Heavenly Father and to Jesus Christ himself. I only wish that I could look at marriage through their eyes as opposed to earthly eyes.

Jesus came down to earth, took upon him a body of flesh and bones and although divine in nature, became human also. He suffered hunger, thirst, and pain - and was even baptized - to fulfilll all righteousness. We know that there are certain ordinances that have to be done here on earth such as baptism and entering into the new and everlasting covenant in order to not only gain salvation, but also exaltation. If Jesus had to be baptized, I cannot accept that he wouldn't also enter into the new and everlasting covenant as well. This is just my humble opinion - don't mean to inflame anybody.

[beefche]

Protestants and most Catholics would be loathe to think that the incarnate God of the universe would marry a mortal. Even though he was fully human, he was also God.

Just look to the controversy caused by the movie: The Last Temptation of Christ, to understand how difficult this idea is for us.

Can you explain more of the reason for the loathing? Why is the same loathing not applied to Mary, mother of Jesus? She was an imperfect being who gave birth to the Son of God.

[Guest]

Can you explain more of the reason for the loathing? Why is the same loathing not applied to Mary, mother of Jesus? She was an imperfect being who gave birth to the Son of God.

Mary is not God.

Remember - Trinity.

[Guest]

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.

[beefche]

Anatess, read my statement and questions again. I didn't say Mary was God. I asked why isn't it loathsome to think of Mary, who is not God or divine, gave birth to a God. If that thought isn't loathsome, then why is it loathsome to think that Jesus, who is perfect and God, could be married to someone who is imperfect and not God?

[bytor2112]

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.

"Christ worked out his own salvation. This is something of which uninspired men have no comprehension. Truly, he was the Lord Omnipotent before the world was; truly, he was like unto the Father in the premortal life; truly, he was the Son of God here on earth—and yet, with it all, as with all the spirit children of the same Father, he too was subject to all of the terms and conditions of the Father's plan.

He also was born on earth to undergo a mortal probation, to die, to rise again in immortal glory, to be judged according to his works, and to receive his place of infinite glory in the eternal kingdom of his Everlasting Father. How well Paul said:

Though he were a Son, yet learned he obedience by the things which he suffered;

And being made perfect, he became the author [that is, the cause] of eternal salvation unto all them that obey him." [Hebrews 5: 8–9] Elder Bruce R McConkie

[prisonchaplain]

Can you explain more of the reason for the loathing? Why is the same loathing not applied to Mary, mother of Jesus? She was an imperfect being who gave birth to the Son of God.

We do not believe Jesus is an exalted man. We believe that he is uniquely the eternal Son of God, the only true God. As such, for him to marry, and have marital relations with one of his created beings strikes us as seedy. One of the reasons the notorious "Godmakers" film was successful in stirring evangelical mistrust of LDS was the scene in which Heavenly Father is portrayed as coming in to be with Mary. It is a shocking scene. LDS who saw it were angered by the undertone...but based on our theology of humans as created beings (out of nothing), and God as uniquely God from eternity to eternity, it is difficult for us to perceive this any other way.

So, likewise, though Jesus was fully human, he remained the one and only Son of God--God himself. Remember that we view Jesus as equal to the Father, subordinate only in his deference to the Father.

That God chose to have Jesus come incarnate, in a virgin vessel is quite different from God chosing to mate with a created mortal. On the other hand, Catholicism does go an extra step in this matter, teaching that Mary was without sin.

[Dravin]

We do not believe Jesus is an exalted man. We believe that he is uniquely the eternal Son of God, the only true God. As such, for him to marry, and have marital relations with one of his created beings strikes us as seedy. One of the reasons the notorious "Godmakers" film was successful in stirring evangelical mistrust of LDS was the scene in which Heavenly Father is portrayed as coming in to be with Mary. It is a shocking scene. LDS who saw it were angered by the undertone...but based on our theology of humans as created beings (out of nothing), and God as uniquely God from eternity to eternity, it is difficult for us to perceive this any other way.

Interesting point. I'm sure it doesn't capture all the shades, but it'd be like accusing you of marrying an android you constructed. I can see why one could see that as seedy even if we're talking some sort of highly advanced genuinely intelligent creation.

That God chose to have Jesus come incarnate, in a virgin vessel is quite different from God chosing to mate with a created mortal. On the other hand, Catholicism does go an extra step in this matter, teaching that Mary was without sin.

To continue with the sci-fi example, it'd be like there isn't anything seedy about an artificial womb. Like I said, I'm probably missing nuance here, but I think I've got a better understanding of an aspect I didn't think of before.

Edited July 21, 2012 by Dravin

[skoshmom]

Jesus came down to earth, took upon him a body of flesh and bones and although divine in nature, became human also. He suffered hunger, thirst, and pain - and was even baptized - to fulfilll all righteousness. We know that there are certain ordinances that have to be done here on earth such as baptism and entering into the new and everlasting covenant in order to not only gain salvation, but also exaltation. If Jesus had to be baptized, I cannot accept that he wouldn't also enter into the new and everlasting covenant as well.

Hi friends,

This is to clarify what I had written earlier. Jesus Christ is the Savior of the world. He is the only begotten son of God the eternal father and is part of the Godhead. He is without sin. He didn't come to earth for anyother reason except to die and atone for our sins. He was the only one who could. I absolutely did not mean to infer that his life here on earth was a probationary period for himself or that he was here to progress or atone for his sins - he is without sin and is part of the Godhead.

However, that being said, I do believe that he led by example to show us the way towards not only salvation, but exaltation as well. He was baptized, even though he did not need to be, but did so to fulfill all righteousness. If the church teaches us that the only way to the celestial kingdom is through the new and everlasting covenant, then it is just my opinion that he would have showed us that way also while here on earth. Again, just my humble opinion.

In reading The Family: A Proclamation to the World, written by the First Presidency and Council of the Twelve Apostles, we understand the divine nature of families. Each of us "is a beloved spirit son or daughter of heavenly parents, and, as such, each has a divine nature and destiny." I absolutely believe that I have a loving Father in Heaven and that Jesus Christ is the son of God. I also believe every bit as much, that I have a Heavenly Mother. I don't pray to her because Jesus instructed us to pray to the Father in his name, but it doesn't mean that I don't love her or long to know more of her. Because of our belief in the divine nature of families, I believe that Jesus Christ was indeed married also. Just my humble opinion. Peace and love to you all.

[NightSG]

Can you imagine what it would be like to be His wife? You would always be the one that's wrong.

That's not unusual. You might just be the first woman to finally understand it.

[applepansy]

Can you imagine what it would be like to be His wife? You would always be the one that's wrong.

LOL

Maybe not. We are talking about Jesus as a spouse.