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

[Anddenex]

Not really a good justification, as men in Christ's day tended not to marry before their mid to late 30s.

Now this is new to me, I have never read anywhere the average age of men who were married to be mid to late 30s.

That would have made Joseph, Mary's husband, the Lord step-father, well below the average. Unless, those who have taught me since childhood are wrong, that Joseph was between 18-20. Most of the sources I have read specify him probably 18.

However, I will be the first to admit, I am not as studied as others are in middle-eastern studies.

I am simply amazed by how smart some people are pertaining to this culture, and the history texts they have read.

The only justification, good justification, pertaining to the Lord being married is that marriage was and is a commandment of the Lord. The Lord was perfect in all things the Father commanded. The Father commanded for his children to be married.

However, there is a lot of empty holes pertaining to the perfection of Christ. We are only taught that he was perfect and sinless.

So I would agree, no justification is good, unless it is true, and if true, then it isn't a justification, just reality. Either way, as previously shared this is my personal opinion.

:)

Edited July 23, 2012 by Anddenex

[volgadon]

Now this is new to me, I have never read anywhere the average age of men who were married to be mid to late 30s.

That would have made Joseph, Mary's husband, the Lord step-father, well below the average. Unless, those who have taught me since childhood are wrong, that Joseph was between 18-20. Most of the sources I have read specify him probably 18.

However, I will be the first to admit, I am not as studied as others are in middle-eastern studies.

I am simply amazed by how smart some people are pertaining to this culture, and the history texts they have read.

The only justification, good justification, pertaining to the Lord being married is that marriage was and is a commandment of the Lord. The Lord was perfect in all things the Father commanded. The Father commanded for his children to be married.

However, there is a lot of empty holes pertaining to the perfection of Christ. We are only taught that he was perfect and sinless.

So I would agree, no justification is good, unless it is true, and if true, then it isn't a justification, just reality. Either way, as previously shared this is my personal opinion.

:)

I've not really seen a good source indicating that Joseph was young when (forgive the pun) he married Mary. The last reference to him is when Jesus was 12. If you'll give me a bit, I can put together some references on male marriage ages in Christ's day.

[Bensalem]

What scripture are you understanding? A single man or woman cannot become Exalted.....they cannot become like God (Heavenly Father) or Christ.

Maybe I am misunderstanding your posts, but you seem to co-opt LDS terminology and attach your own definitions/meanings and in so doing change the meaning from what Latter Day Saints believe to some variant that you believe.

Which scripture? All of them. But we need not go beyond your own understanding.

As you posted on another thread:

Exaltation is Eternal Life. and as one of Heavenly father's names is Eternal, it is the kind of life that HE lives. It is to have Eternal increase, to live in the presence of the Father, to become joint heirs with Christ.

So when we attain eternal life we are like God; eternal life brings to us a form of His divinity. We do not have to be married to gain eternal life.

Bruce R. McConkie states that exaltation is the third and highest form of salvation which brings us to the celestial kingdom. Of this exaltation he states, there is no salvation outside the LDS Church.

Yet not everyone in the church is an eternal pair.

As you probably know the celestial kingdom is further divided into three glories, the highest of which is held by married pairs in the priesthood. That leaves two other categories of exaltation that do not require marriage, yet the enter kingdom and all who are in it are divine.

So I believe that I am correct in stating that a single man and a single woman in the LDS church can be exalted and share God’s divinity in the celestial kingdom still falling short of the highest exaltation granted to eternal pairs.

[Maureen]

As a Christian, and one who believes in the Trinity, a being that is ONE, but separate, prays to himself, at a baptism speaks from Heaven calling himself his son and is pleased in himself, and a dove appears for the Holy Ghost. Yet, you write, LDS doctrines confuse you the most?

...We are taught regarding mysteries of heaven, and these mysteries are confusing, or may appear confusing because of our limited knowledge.

This also is dependent on where you get your knowledge from and how you go about obtaining knowledge....Our doctrine may be the most confusing to you because of how you originally were taught regarding our doctrine verses actually seeking correct sources...

Talk about limited knowledge. Where did you get your information about the Trinity from? It definitely wasn't from Trinitarians. If you wish to know what Trinitarians believe, it might be helpful to seek correct sources.

M.

[beefche]

Tell me, Bensalem, are you a current member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saint church? Have you officially been baptized and confirmed a member? Do you attend church on a regular basis?

[Bensalem]

Tell me, Bensalem, are you a current member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saint church? Have you officially been baptized and confirmed a member? Do you attend church on a regular basis?

Why do you ask?

[beefche]

Because you didn't put a religion in your profile, but seem to know quite a bit about LDS scriptures. Why won't you answer the simple question?

[Bensalem]

Because you didn't put a religion in your profile, but seem to know quite a bit about LDS scriptures. Why won't you answer the simple question?

Unfortunately, I don't have the time to answer you the way I wish. So to quell your curiosity, I will give you the short version: Yes, yes, yes...and I am a priest of God and Christ who has served Him faithfully in many callings and ventures since the day I was converted by His voice of truth.

Got to start my day; have a good one yourself.

[Guest]

Unfortunately, I don't have the time to answer you the way I wish. So to quell your curiosity, I will give you the short version: Yes, yes, yes...and I am a priest of God and Christ who has served Him faithfully in many callings and ventures since the day I was converted by His voice of truth.

Got to start my day; have a good one yourself.

Interesting first sentence...

[Leah]

Unfortunately, I don't have the time to answer you the way I wish. So to quell your curiosity, I will give you the short version: Yes, yes, yes...and I am a priest of God and Christ who has served Him faithfully in many callings and ventures since the day I was converted by His voice of truth.

Got to start my day; have a good one yourself.

Pretty evasive/vague answer. Why are you reluctant/unwilling to answer this in the straightforward manner in which it was asked?

[Anddenex]

Talk about limited knowledge. Where did you get your information about the Trinity from? It definitely wasn't from Trinitarians. If you wish to know what Trinitarians believe, it might be helpful to seek correct sources.

M.

Haha Maureen, when you actually point out my "limited knowledge" regarding the Trinity, instead of just saying "Talk about limited knowledge" you might have a valuable point. Typically, if you are going to point out someones "limited knowledge" because ultimately you are saying you have more, yet providing nothing to back up your point. Hmmm....

Instead, you insult, and then tell me to look at correct sources, which I have thank you. How about you take the extra step and give me all your wisdom about the Trinity you think I don't have.

Edited July 23, 2012 by Anddenex

[Anddenex]

I've not really seen a good source indicating that Joseph was young when (forgive the pun) he married Mary. The last reference to him is when Jesus was 12. If you'll give me a bit, I can put together some references on male marriage ages in Christ's day.

That would be great reading, thank you.

[beefche]

Actually, the discussion of the Trinity has been talked about quite a lot on here. Do a search for it. Maureen and PrisonChaplin have been gracious in explaining it ad nauseaum.

Also, I did not take Maureen's post to you as insulting. She is pointing out that you have limited knowledge of the Trinity. And from your post on it (and my understanding of it, thanks to Maureen and PC), I believe she was correct.

[Anddenex]

Actually, the discussion of the Trinity has been talked about quite a lot on here. Do a search for it. Maureen and PrisonChaplin have been gracious in explaining it ad nauseaum.

Also, I did not take Maureen's post to you as insulting. She is pointing out that you have limited knowledge of the Trinity. And from your post on it (and my understanding of it, thanks to Maureen and PC), I believe she was correct.

Thanks beefche for the information, your belief in my knowledge of the Trinity however is incorrect.

[Maureen]

Haha Maureen, when you actually point out my "limited knowledge" regarding the Trinity, instead of just saying "Talk about limited knowledge" you might have a valuable point. Typically, if you are going to point out someones "limited knowledge" because ultimately you are saying you have more, yet providing nothing to back up your point. Hmmm....

Instead, you insult, and then tell me to look at correct sources, which I have thank you. How about you take the extra step and give me all your wisdom about the Trinity you think I don't have.

I'm trying to point out to you that if you expect non-LDS to learn about your beliefs from the correct sources it would behoove you also to take your own advice and learn what other faiths believe; instead of spouting off what you mockingly think they believe.

M.

[beefche]

Thanks beefche for the information, your belief in my knowledge of the Trinity however is incorrect.

Well, considering that you said Jesus was praying to Himself in the Garden, and it was His own voice speaking at His baptism, then I can only assume you don't understand the Trinity.

[Guest]

Thanks beefche for the information, your belief in my knowledge of the Trinity however is incorrect.

Anddenex, just for clarification on how Maureen and beefche came up with the thought that you don't understand the Trinity... The first indication that you don't understand the Trinity is saying "Jesus prayed to Himself" and all that "to himself" jazz...

Ack... beefche beat me to it.

Carry on.

[Anddenex]

Anddenex, just for clarification on how Maureen and beefche came up with the thought that you don't understand the Trinity... The first indication that you don't understand the Trinity is saying "Jesus prayed to Himself" and all that "to himself" jazz...

Ack... beefche beat me to it.

Carry on.

Within in the Trinity, Jesus did pray to himself. It really doesn't matter how they try to explain it, or justify it.

Jesus, is the Father in the flesh, according to the Trinity belief system. Thus, Jesus, the Father in the flesh, is praying to himself.

No, my understanding is correct, and I have heard General Authorities speak the same way.

The easy question to ask any Trinitarian, when I stand before God, will I see Jesus, the Holy Ghost, and God, or will I just see God, One being?

If I only see one being, then Jesus was praying to himself, because he is God in the flesh, separate but not separate. If I see more than one being, God the son, and God the Father, standing next to him, on his right hand, then Jesus wasn't praying to himself.

Anatess, I am familiar with Trinitarians belief system, spoken with many, and have read their material.

I understand, what they say, but I have never read or heard any sound argument specifying how Jesus, the Father in the flesh, wasn't praying to himself.

If Maureen can provide me a good sound argument, or source, which specifies how Jesus, being God in the Flesh, isn't praying to himself, then I have no problem admitting my error.

[Guest]

Within in the Trinity, Jesus did pray to himself. It really doesn't matter how they try to explain it, or justify it.

Jesus, is the Father in the flesh, according to the Trinity belief system. Thus, Jesus, the Father in the flesh, is praying to himself.

No, my understanding is correct, and I have heard General Authorities speak the same way.

The easy question to ask any Trinitarian, when I stand before God, will I see Jesus, the Holy Ghost, and God, or will I just see God, One being?

If I only see one being, then Jesus was praying to himself, because he is God in the flesh, separate but not separate. If I see more than one being, God the son, and God the Father, standing next to him, on his right hand, then Jesus wasn't praying to himself.

Anatess, I am familiar with Trinitarians belief system, spoken with many, and have read their material.

I understand, what they say, but I have never read or heard any sound argument specifying how Jesus, the Father in the flesh, wasn't praying to himself.

If Maureen can provide me a good sound argument, or source, which specifies how Jesus, being God in the Flesh, isn't praying to himself, then I have no problem admitting my error.

Like I said - you don't understand it. I was devout Catholic before I turned LDS. I have a very good understanding of the Trinity and the Godhead so I feel qualified to talk about both. Believe me - there's not much difference between the two. And everything you're saying here is wrong. The simple answer is of course, when Jesus Christ tells you that you will be ONE with God, does that make you then, pray to yourself? Why not? Believe it or not - the answer between a Godhead and a Trinitarian to that question is exactly the same.

But, since this is really not the best place to address your Trinitarian questions as it would be a major thread hijack, beefche's advice is a very good idea for you - do a search on on the Trinity discussions here.

Okay, I'll make it easier for you - here's a good discussion:

http://www.lds.net/forums/learn-about-mormon-church/29985-trinity.html

Lots of info for you on that one. Maureen, PrisonChaplain, Jason_J, and I (we have heavy Trinitarian backgrounds) have lots of input on it - and Jason_J and I are LDS converts although at the writing of that thread, Jason_J was not yet converted to LDS.

[Maureen]

...No, my understanding is correct, and I have heard General Authorities speak the same way....

So you are admitting that you are getting your information about the Trinity from LDS GA's, people who do not believe in the Trinity, therefore do not know what the Trinity is. You don't see anything hypocritical about that?

The trinity doctrine is this:

God is the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit, three persons in one being. The Father is God, the Son is God and the Holy Spirit is God, but scripture tells us that there is only one God, therefore the three persons of the Trinity are individually and collectively God. The doctrine of the Trinity specifically notes that the persons of the Trinity are not to be confounded. The Athanasian Creeds states: That we worship one God in Trinity, and Trinity in Unity; Neither confounding the Persons; nor dividing the Essence. Which means that the Father is the Father, he is never the Son or HS, the Son is the Son, he is never the Father or HS and the Holy Spirit is the Holy Spirit, he is never the Father or the Son. God has always existed as a Trinity before the beginning. A perfect example of the Trinity is at Jesus' baptism. And when people are baptized they are baptized in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit.

When Jesus prayed, he prayed as the Son who prays to the Father.

Anddenex, your posts confirms without a doubt that you have no clue what the Trinity is. Your whole description is false. Do a search on this forum and you can read numerous posts about the Trinity.

M.

[Anddenex]

Like I said - you don't understand it. I was devout Catholic before I turned LDS. I have a very good understanding of the Trinity and the Godhead so I feel qualified to talk about both. Believe me - there's not much difference between the two. And everything you're saying here is wrong. The simple answer is of course, when Jesus Christ tells you that you will be ONE with God, does that make you then, pray to yourself? Why not? Believe it or not - the answer between a Godhead and a Trinitarian to that question is exactly the same.

But, since this is really not the best place to address your Trinitarian questions as it would be a major thread hijack, beefche's advice is a very good idea for you - do a search on on the Trinity discussions here.

Okay, I'll make it easier for you - here's a good discussion:

http://www.lds.net/forums/learn-about-mormon-church/29985-trinity.html

Lots of info for you on that one. Maureen, PrisonChaplain, Jason_J, and I (we have heavy Trinitarian backgrounds) have lots of input on it - and Jason_J and I are LDS converts although at the writing of that thread, Jason_J was not yet converted to LDS.

Thank you Anatess for the site provided.

The simple answer is of course, when Jesus Christ tells you that you will be ONE with God, does that make you then, pray to yourself?

Not even close to the same thing, for I am not Jesus Christ, nor will I be one being with Jesus Christ. I pray to an actual being separate of myself.

My mother is a convert to the Church also. Her belief system previously was Trinitarian also.

So should I doubt my mother and her explanation of the Trinitarian belief system and that she was and is not as adept as Maureen and yourself?

Either way Anatess, we disagree, but thank you for the site information, I will review it.

[Vort]

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.

I do sort of understand the gut-level reaction, PC. I just do not see the scriptural justification for it. On the contrary, Paul taught, "Marriage is honourable in all, and the bed undefiled".

As I wrote initially (and I haven't yet read this thread, so this may have already been covered), the question was why LDS members would object to the idea. I can't figure that out.

But the larger question of why Christians generally would object is equally murky to me. I can understand some of the gut-level, unreasoned feelings about "Creator" intimately mixing with "created" -- but isn't that very thing the miracle of the incarnate Jesus? God taking upon himself a fleshy tabernacle and actually eating and breathing and pooping and conversing with mortal men and women? On the contrary, I think the discomfort stems from a very deep aversion to sex itself, or if not an aversion, at least a deeply held and perhaps even unconscious believe that there is something fundamentally unclean and profane about sex. As a Latter-day Saint, I explicitly disbelieve this, believing in fact quite the opposite.

[Anddenex]

So you are admitting that you are getting your information about the Trinity from LDS GA's, people who do not believe in the Trinity, therefore do not know what the Trinity is. You don't see anything hypocritical about that?

No, didn't mention anything of the like. I will quote myself:

Anatess, I am familiar with Trinitarians belief system, spoken with many, and have read their material.

I understand, what they say, but I have never read or heard any sound argument specifying how Jesus, the Father in the flesh, wasn't praying to himself.

When Jesus prayed, he prayed as the Son who prays to the Father.

Yet, they are "one being" as presently provided in your description of the trinity, which I have read before. One being, the son prays to the father, one being, the son is thus praying to himself. How can a person not be praying to himself if the two are "one being."

Anddenex, your posts confirms without a doubt that you have no clue what the Trinity is. Your whole description is false. Do a search on this forum and you can read numerous posts about the Trinity.

I will look into the information Anatess provided, and if I have no clue, then all the Trinitarians I have spoken with, have "no clue" either.

However, I will respectfully disagree with you, and continue to trust in my mother's words who was a Trinitarian before her conversion to the LDS faith, and others which I have spoken with. But then again, I guess my mother had "no clue" either, of course.

In the meantime, I agree with Anatess, the thread is different than what we are discussing, and I will read over the information Anatess provided.

[mnn727]

I think it a holdover from when sex was thought of something dirty, even inside marriage.

To think of Jesus having sex would be unthinkable to someone who though sex was dirty.

[Guest]

Not even close to the same thing, for I am not Jesus Christ, nor will I be one being with Jesus Christ. I pray to an actual being separate of myself.

And there you go. That's the Trinitarian answer. Jesus Christ did not pray to Himself because He is not God the Father, nor will he be one person with God the Father.

Okay, line upon line, precept upon precept- BEING is a word that means totally different between how you use it and how Trinitarians use it. In your sentences, BEING in interchangeable with PERSON. This is not so in Trinitarian talk. When Trinitarians apply the word BEING to the Trinity, they don't mean one PERSON, one individual... To understand what Trinitarians are talking about when they say BEING - look up the greek word OUSIA in google.

My mother is a convert to the Church also. Her belief system previously was Trinitarian also.

So should I doubt my mother and her explanation of the Trinitarian belief system and that she was and is not as adept as Maureen and yourself?

If that's what she's saying, and not just what you thought she was saying, then yes, she doesn't understand the Trinity at all. Kinda sad, if you ask me. But all too common, unfortunately.

Edited July 23, 2012 by anatess