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

[AnthonyB]

Traveller,

Mary was Jesus mother but does mean she was his gestational carrier or that she contributed DNA to him?

I would guess LDS probably see it as Mary's DNA and God the Fathers DNA.

There are two other options firstly mix of Mary's DNA and DNA created by God for the purpose (As he created Adam's DNA)

Or God created all the DNA from scratch without using Mary's DNA as he created Adam's DNA in the first place. Mary was his mother in the sense she carried him.

I don't see the NT explicitly stating which of the three above is what happened.

I'm sure you have modern revelation that might shed light on it for you but I simply don't know.

[bytor2112]

I think your views of eternal life and divinity are too narrow. Bruce R. McConkie says, "those who gain eternal life receive exaltation; they are the sons of God, joint-heirs with Christ, members of the Church of the Firstborn; they overcome all things, have all power, and receive the fulness of the Father. They are gods." Mormon Doctrine, page 237.

No mention of marriage being required for eternal life or divinity. And no mention of a partially exalted celestial kingdom; all three parts are exalted, eternal, and divine.

The highest level (glory) in the celestial kingdom is eternal increase, which requires marriage in the priesthood of God and Christ.

You are free to think what you wish. Your views of Eternal Life are not doctrinal....

The quote from Elder McConkie is spot on and in order to become as he describes, the covenant of Eternal marriage as absolutely essential.

Elder Nelson:

"Eternal life, or celestial glory or exaltation, is a conditional gift. Conditions of this gift have been established by the Lord, who said, “If you keep my commandments and endure to the end you shall have eternal life, which gift is the greatest of all the gifts of God.” 13 Those qualifying conditions include faith in the Lord, repentance, baptism, receiving the Holy Ghost, and remaining faithful to the ordinances and covenants of the temple.

No man in this Church can obtain the highest degree of celestial glory without a worthy woman who is sealed to him. 14 This temple ordinance enables eventual exaltation for both of them." Elder Russell M Nelson

Edited July 24, 2012 by bytor2112

[Traveler]

Where did you get the idea that I made that conclusion?

You must be misunderstanding one of my posts.

Your statement that the scriptures do not support that Jesus does not consider marriage to a "earthly wife" something that a G-d would command or that he is the type of G-d that issues commandments he would not keep himself. What in scriptures supports that kind of thinking.

Even the covenant he commanded his disciples make with him is called a marriage and we are told to think of our relationship to G-d as a marriage?

Thus the doctrine of marriage is sacred, divine and holy which also means complete and whole. The scriptures specifically say that marriage is ordained of G-d and that man is not without the woman nor is the woman without the man before G-d. I understand that in order to be one - the Hebrew word here for one is "ehad" and it is generally understood that ehad is a type of marriage - a oneness, completeness that is holy.

The Traveler

[bytor2112]

I think your views of eternal life and divinity are too narrow. Bruce R. McConkie says, "those who gain eternal life receive exaltation; they are the sons of God, joint-heirs with Christ, members of the Church of the Firstborn; they overcome all things, have all power, and receive the fulness of the Father. They are gods." Mormon Doctrine, page 237.

No mention of marriage being required for eternal life or divinity. And no mention of a partially exalted celestial kingdom; all three parts are exalted, eternal, and divine.

The highest level (glory) in the celestial kingdom is eternal increase, which requires marriage in the priesthood of God and Christ.

Sorry....but you are incorrect. If you wish to reference Mormon Doctrine, then please see page 257....The opening sentence states the following:

"Celestial marriage is the gate to exaltation and exaltation consists in the continuation of the family unit in eternity. Exaltation is Eternal Life, the kind of life which God lives."

[Bensalem]

Sorry....but you are incorrect. If you wish to reference Mormon Doctrine, then please see page 257....The opening sentence states the following:

"Celestial marriage is the gate to exaltation and exaltation consists in the continuation of the family unit in eternity. Exaltation is Eternal Life, the kind of life which God lives."

We both quoted the same GA from the same book he wrote. I can't be wrong unless Bruce R. McConkie is wrong. Maybe some others here can add their views to overcome this impasse.

[bytor2112]

We both quoted the same GA from the same book he wrote. I can't be wrong unless Bruce R. McConkie is wrong. Maybe some others here can add their views to overcome this impasse.

Elder McConkie is spot on, you are, however, incorrect. You need to read the entire entry that you reference from page 237 ....it supports exactly what I posted from 257.

Edited July 24, 2012 by bytor2112

[Traveler]

We both quoted the same GA from the same book he wrote. I can't be wrong unless Bruce R. McConkie is wrong. Maybe some others here can add their views to overcome this impasse.

Jesus never said that he was the Christ. Just because the scriptures do not say a specific thing does not mean that it is not so. Jesus told his disciples that he speaks of things symbolically - so that the world can make what ever excuse they like but that his disciples that understand through the spirit will know the truth - even the truth of all things. That Jesus never said he was not married is in this example very telling. Now why is it that G-d speaks of sacred things symbolically?

The Traveler

[Bensalem]

Elder McConkie is spot on, you are, however, incorrect. You need to read the entire entry that you reference from page 237 ....it supports exactly what I posted from 257.

I don't believe we are going to resolve this. The Bruce R. McConkie quote I provided (and his whole article on eternal life) is clear. The quote you provided speaks specifically of the highest form of exaltation obtained through marriage in the priesthood, which allows for eternal increase in the form of creating spirit children in the resurrection.

This does not mean that single priests and the unmarried daughters of Israel are not also in an exalted state of being, which is also divine in nature. Nor does it mean that their lives are not eternal.

[Bensalem]

Jesus never said that he was the Christ. Just because the scriptures do not say a specific thing does not mean that it is not so. Jesus told his disciples that he speaks of things symbolically - so that the world can make what ever excuse they like but that his disciples that understand through the spirit will know the truth - even the truth of all things. That Jesus never said he was not married is in this example very telling. Now why is it that G-d speaks of sacred things symbolically?

The Traveler

But His disciples did profess him to be the Christ and that is recorded in scripture. What is lacking in scripture is the disciples calling him married.

[bytor2112]

I don't believe we are going to resolve this. The Bruce R. McConkie quote I provided (and his whole article on eternal life) is clear. The quote you provided speaks specifically of the highest form of exaltation obtained through marriage in the priesthood, which allows for eternal increase in the form of creating spirit children in the resurrection.

This does not mean that single priests and the unmarried daughters of Israel are not also in an exalted state of being, which is also divine in nature. Nor does it mean that their lives are not eternal.

Maybe you should attend Gospel Principles so that you will understand the basic fundamentals of the Gospel. You are incorrect and the beliefs that you espouse are NOT doctrinal. Why would you continue to cling to false notions? Speak with your Bishop or the Elder's Quorum President or HP Group Leader.

This link is from the Gospel Principles manual....

[prisonchaplain]

Could you be specific? As I understand - Jesus had a father and a mother - what is supernatural about that?

The Traveler

I thought the virgin birth was accepted in LDS teaching. If so, what do you mean he had a father? Yes, Joseph was a father to Jesus, but Mary conceived supernaturally, by the Holy Spirit.

[Bensalem]

Maybe you should attend Gospel Principles so that you will understand the basic fundamentals of the Gospel. You are incorrect and the beliefs that you espouse are NOT doctrinal. Why would you continue to cling to false notions? Speak with your Bishop or the Elder's Quorum President or HP Group Leader.

This link is from the Gospel Principles manual....

I attend every week. I prefer GP class over GD class. It's where you meet the investigators, and as a ward missionary it is better to be there.

As we both know, the book Mormon Doctrine is not scripture. It has not been accepted as such by the LDS Church, so we should not fight over it's words. They are not the Word of God. They were written by an inspired man and have much value in its pages, but in the preface Bruce R. McConkie said, "For the work itself, I assume sole and full responsibility."

I profess one understanding and you profess another; Bruce will decide between us who is right.

Let me leave this discussion with a scripture that does support my point: "This is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent." (John 17:3)

Peace brother.

[bytor2112]

I attend every week. I prefer GP class over GD class. It's where you meet the investigators, and as a ward missionary it is better to be there.

As we both know, the book Mormon Doctrine is not scripture. It has not been accepted as such by the LDS Church, so we should not fight over it's words. They are not the Word of God. The written by an inspired man and have much value in its pages, but in the preface Bruce R. McConkie said, "For the work itself, I assume sole and full responsibility."

I profess one understanding and you profess another; Bruce will decide between us who is right.

Let me leave this discussion with a scripture that does support my point: "This is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent." (John 17:3)

Peace brother.

Brother....you should pay close attention to what is taught, especially if you are teaching false doctrines to investigators. Elder McConkie aside and you are the one that quoted first from his reference work, Mormon Doctrine., this is basic, fundamental stuff.

Apparently the Gospel Principles manual wasn't plain enough for you, so, I am guessing that D & C 131 and 132 won't matter much to you in the world of Bensalem's doctrine. But, you might read it anyway and maybe you will understand the verse from the Lord's great intercessory prayer a bit better.

[Bensalem]

Brother....you should pay close attention to what is taught, especially if you are teaching false doctrines to investigators. Elder McConkie aside and you are the one that quoted first from his reference work, Mormon Doctrine., this is basic, fundamental stuff.

Apparently the Gospel Principles manual wasn't plain enough for you, so, I am guessing that D & C 131 and 132 won't matter much to you in the world of Bensalem's doctrine. But, you might read it anyway and maybe you will understand the verse from the Lord's great intercessory prayer a bit better.

Instead of all that personal stuff, why don't you just address John 17:3. It defines eternal life very clearly. Specifically missing is any reference to a marriage requirement.

Would you teach an investigator that he does not receive eternal life in Christ, or that they do not share in His divinity? That's absurd.

You can still teach of the greatest glory marriage in the priesthood brings without denying the faithful eternal life or a shared divinity through baptism in the LDS Church.

Common sense; not word battles.

Edited July 24, 2012 by Bensalem

[Guest]

Instead of all that personal stuff, why don't you just address John 17:3. It defines eternal life very clearly. Specifically missing is any reference to a marriage requirement.

Would you teach an investigator that he does not receive eternal life in Christ, or that they do not share in His divinity? That's absurd.

You can still teach of the greatest glory marriage in the priesthood brings without denying the faithful eternal life or a shared divinity through baptism in the LDS Church.

Common sense; not word battles.

Bensalem - this is not a word battle. You are talking about ETERNAL LIFE, Bytor is talking about EXALTATION. Two very different things.

Man is already eternal - our spirits have no beginning and no end. Eternal life in Christ is attained through the Atonement. All of us that has ever been born on earth receive this unless we specifically reject it - that is, we gain a complete understanding - a testimony - of the atonement and we choose not to accept it. That's John 17:3. If you decide to reject the atonement, you're still eternal, you're just not going to be with Christ.

Exaltation - getting to the highest level of God's Kingdom require eternal marriage, either on this earth or after death. That's Exaltation. And that's what Bytor was giving you the link to the Gospel Principles manual for.

[Traveler]

I thought the virgin birth was accepted in LDS teaching. If so, what do you mean he had a father? Yes, Joseph was a father to Jesus, but Mary conceived supernaturally, by the Holy Spirit.

Sometimes I believe liberties are taken and terms are added to define ideas that are not exactly understood correctly. For example I cannot find the term "virgin birth" in scripture. As LDS I accept the doctrine in scripture that Mary was a virgin. However, the scriptures also tell us that Mary conceived and that she was the mother of our L-rd.

So now we try to understand - did Jesus have a father or not? I believe the doctrine is that Jesus did have a father and that is where and why he had divine power to overcome death.

What I find interesting is that in other questions and other discussions you have stated that G-d can do whatever he wants and by definition what he does is sacred and holy. This is in response to commanding that entire cities (including women and children and animals) be put to death. But are we to understand that if G-d was the Father of Jesus - that it would suddenly not be sacred and holy? That appears to have some hypocrisy and inconsistency in considering divine possibilities and placing "limits" on G-d and making him subject to our judgments.

The Traveler

[Anddenex]

We both quoted the same GA from the same book he wrote. I can't be wrong unless Bruce R. McConkie is wrong. Maybe some others here can add their views to overcome this impasse.

I think you two are arguing over semantics verses actually listening to each other; I am not perfect at this and get ahead of myself also.

If exhaltation is obtained only by entering into the Celestial Kingdom, then the answers you have provided are correct.

However, I could be wrong, what Bytor is expressing is that exhaltation is not in obtaining the Celestial Kingdom, exhaltation is when we become more like God, and receive all the Father hath.

In this instance, then Bytor is correct, and exhaltation is only obtained through marriage, and by obtaining the highest degree within the Celestial kingdom. I am more inclined to believe, from my understanding of exhaltation, is that exhaltation is only obtained if a person obtains the highest degree within the Celestial kingdom. If they obtained the Celestial kingdom, then they have received eternal life, but are not exhalted.

Bruce R. McConkie could be wrong. I remember, while attending BYU, a professor who wrote a book and wanted a seal of approval by the Church head, so that it could be published as church approved. They had put a quote from Bruce R. McConkie in it from Mormon Doctrine. They were asked to remove the quote from the book. Thus when quoting Mormon Doctrine we need to make sure it stands the doctrinal test via cannon.

[Traveler]

I attend every week. I prefer GP class over GD class. It's where you meet the investigators, and as a ward missionary it is better to be there.

As we both know, the book Mormon Doctrine is not scripture. It has not been accepted as such by the LDS Church, so we should not fight over it's words. They are not the Word of God. They were written by an inspired man and have much value in its pages, but in the preface Bruce R. McConkie said, "For the work itself, I assume sole and full responsibility."

I profess one understanding and you profess another; Bruce will decide between us who is right.

Let me leave this discussion with a scripture that does support my point: "This is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent." (John 17:3)

Peace brother.

Hmmm - so my question now is - by what means do we come to know the only true G-d and Jesus Christ who was sent? I believe the scriptures are (in mathematical terms) neither necessary nor sufficient. (see Matt 16:17)

The Traveler

[Dove]

Can someone help me find the official statement on whether or not the Savior was married? It was my understanding that an official statement was made some time ago that He was not married in this life? Am I wrong on this? Any takers?

Thanks

Dove

[Guest]

I thought the virgin birth was accepted in LDS teaching. If so, what do you mean he had a father? Yes, Joseph was a father to Jesus, but Mary conceived supernaturally, by the Holy Spirit.

Sometimes I believe liberties are taken and terms are added to define ideas that are not exactly understood correctly. For example I cannot find the term "virgin birth" in scripture. As LDS I accept the doctrine in scripture that Mary was a virgin. However, the scriptures also tell us that Mary conceived and that she was the mother of our L-rd.

So now we try to understand - did Jesus have a father or not? I believe the doctrine is that Jesus did have a father and that is where and why he had divine power to overcome death.

What I find interesting is that in other questions and other discussions you have stated that G-d can do whatever he wants and by definition what he does is sacred and holy. This is in response to commanding that entire cities (including women and children and animals) be put to death. But are we to understand that if G-d was the Father of Jesus - that it would suddenly not be sacred and holy? That appears to have some hypocrisy and inconsistency in considering divine possibilities and placing "limits" on G-d and making him subject to our judgments.

The Traveler

Let me join in, if I may.

I think your only difference is the word "supernaturally". LDS and AofG both believe Jesus was born through a virgin - Mary. And both believe that God the Father is his Father. So the only point of contention between you 2 is the meaning of "supernaturally".

For PC, it's through the power of the Holy Spirit - easy enough to understand when viewed through the lens of a Trinitarian. Not so much for LDS who is non-Trinitarian. In LDS doctrine, God the Father is Jesus' literal Father in the flesh. And Mary was a virgin when she conceived Jesus. Therefore, Jesus was conceived in some other way other than sexual relations. In today's modern science, this is not so supernatural a concept anymore. You can get pregnant through a test tube and not ever have known sexual relations if you so desire. I think that's what Traveler was driving at. Jesus is literally the son of God the Father just as much as my son is literally the son of my husband - not that Mary lost her virginity to God the Father or some crazy thing like that. If you consider non-sexual conception as supernatural, then it is supernatural for sure. Other than that - we really don't know the specifics of how his fetus ended up in virign Mary's womb but it's as natural as the possibilities presented by modern science.

Okay, did that muddy it up some more?

[Anddenex]

Can someone help me find the official statement on whether or not the Savior was married? It was my understanding that an official statement was made some time ago that He was not married in this life? Am I wrong on this? Any takers?

Thanks

Dove

I think you might find this link in connection with fair to be insightful. I did.

Jesus Christ/Was Jesus married - FAIRMormon

Here is an actual quote from the site:

"Dale Bills, a spokesman for the Church, said in a statement released Tuesday, 16 May 2006:

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.[3]"

[Vort]

Mary when she conceived Jesus was already engaged to Joseph. A much more serious commitment in that culture then it is today.

For the record, this idea that Mary and Joseph were "engaged" when she got pregnant is a commonly believed fallacy. It is factually false. Mary and Joseph were married -- husband and wife -- at the time Mary became pregnant. They had not yet "moved in together", so to speak. But they were fully and completely married, by law and in the eyes of society.

And God can do whatever he wants. It is impossible for him to sin. He is the Lawgiver. When he kills a man, it is never murder. When he blesses someone, it is never favoritism. He is no arsonist for burning down a house, or a forest, or anything else. Anything he does is just and perfect.

You (generically, not specifically Anthony) need not believe any such thing as sexual activity vis-a-vis God. There is no Church doctrine on that subject. You are in no way bound to accept it, if you find it distasteful. But, please, if you must discuss the subject, don't talk about "rape" or "adultery" or some other such stupidity. It is not and cannot be. This is God we're talking about, a Being who cannot sin.

[prisonchaplain]

Therefore, Jesus was conceived in some other way other than sexual relations. ... Jesus is literally the son of God the Father just as much as my son is literally the son of my husband - not that Mary lost her virginity to God the Father or some crazy thing like that.

Forgive me for splicing the quote, but I think this section highlights my point. Even to an LDS convert's thinking it is crazy to think that Mary lost her virginity to Heavenly Father. For Trinitarians then, who believe Jesus is eternally God, eternally distinct from mortals, it is equally crazy to think that Jesus would have married and caused a created mortal to lose her virginity to him.

Having said that, I'll repeat that the LDS Godhead teaching makes this much less problematic, and I believe I do get that.

[Dove]

http://www.lds.net/forums/general-discussion/37237-identity-our-mother-heaven-7.html

Vort,

Here is a reference to a thread done last year that talks about our belief in Mary and how the Savior is the "only begotten Son" of the Father....this seemed to be appropo for what you are talking about.

[Guest]

Forgive me for splicing the quote, but I think this section highlights my point. Even to an LDS convert's thinking it is crazy to think that Mary lost her virginity to Heavenly Father. For Trinitarians then, who believe Jesus is eternally God, eternally distinct from mortals, it is equally crazy to think that Jesus would have married and caused a created mortal to lose her virginity to him.

Having said that, I'll repeat that the LDS Godhead teaching makes this much less problematic, and I believe I do get that.

Well, actually, I don't mean to use crazy as in - I think it's crazy. I'm using the word crazy as in - it's something anti-LDS folks use to attack LDS doctrine - which is crazy. Personally, I don't find the idea that God the Father had sex with Mary crazy... it's not true, but if it was, I wouldn't think it crazy. I would think it - okay, so THAT's how that happened.

Okay, that just made this post even more crazy.