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

[Sicily510]

lol, yup the iphone is a monopolized corporate product that is trying to attract money and trends. Yup....that's why they sell their products at a rate that's equivalent to a down payment for a vehicle in a rural area. Why are people so concerned about Jesus Christ and weird things when they should be concerned about how he lived. When we become speculators on subjects that are so irrelevant to the goal of building our homes upon the rock of Jesus Christ we are diluting our focus with other worries that become digressing support for us to withdrawal further from the Lord. I hope that the OP was not to question to withdrawal spirits from being closer with heavenly father and our savior Jesus Christ. We must know what we are doing if we are in doubt or misunderstanding that we must find solution to this individually for not all of us can be the solution to each other but only our begotten brethren Jesus Christ.

[Traveler]

And by Traveler's logic we can thus conclude:

Jesus Christ was not female ==> Therefore being female is not good.

Jesus Christ did not program ==> Therefore programming is not good.

Jesus Christ did not live in North America ==> Therefore living in North America is not good.

Jesus Christ did not participate in message board discussions ==> Therefore participating in message board discussions is not good.

Jesus Christ did not say he was married ==> Therefore saying Jesus Christ is married is not good.

Dravin (and others) - I am most disappointed. Exclusion is not transitive proof.

The not I had in my first example was intended to illustrate this very point and error in logic which is obviously incorrect. What are you people thinking????

The Traveler

[Dravin]

What are you people thinking????

The Traveler

That "here is another thought" is not "I disclaim the previous statement."

[Vort]

Dravin (and others) - I am most disappointed. Exclusion is not transitive proof.

The not I had in my first example was intended to illustrate this very point and error in logic which is obviously incorrect. What are you people thinking????

I believe Dravin understood your point perfectly, and used it to extend the logic (or lack thereof) onto other absurd examples.

[Traveler]

At least we can all agree that "not" is not transitive.

But it is interesting that no one has touched the actual transitive logic. Second statement.

There are very few possibilities. Either one of the assumed statements is incorrect (a lie) or the law of transitivity if flawed. Or it is correct.

I would be most interested in which option by my critics.

but if you like you can play forever with the flaws of the first statement and ignore the second?

The Traveler

[prisonchaplain]

Dravin (and others) - I am most disappointed. Exclusion is not transitive proof.

The not I had in my first example was intended to illustrate this very point and error in logic which is obviously incorrect. What are you people thinking????

The Traveler

I'm thinking that ... http://t2.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQFx9H2Ea2bofln7T3YXrXQHv_6JmY-89yi1Jsf5PRhFmHwTE_z

[Traveler]

I'm thinking that ... http://t2.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQFx9H2Ea2bofln7T3YXrXQHv_6JmY-89yi1Jsf5PRhFmHwTE_z

It will not be the first time in the history of man sarcasm backfired. It is not that I am concerned about the hit as much as the distraction to what should be "communicated" and logically realized.

The Traveler

[anan]

Did Jesus urinate? It never actually makes that point explicitly in the Bible, so by your reasoning, ought we to conclude that Jesus never urinated?

Did Jesus ever visit with his aunts and uncles? Shall we assume not, since the Bible never says he did?

Did Jesus ever engage in long philosophical discussions with his mother? Well, the Bible mentions to such discussions, so can we then conclude that he probably did not?

Arguments from silence are notoriously weak, as already mentioned. Saying "Jesus must not have been married because it's never mentioned in the Bible" is an argument from silence.

You seem to misunderstand the question. I did not ask, "How come all Latter-day Saints don't believe that Jesus was married?" Rather, the question is, "Why do Latter-day Saints have a problem with the idea that Jesus was married?" I can understand the answer to the former question: As you say, lacking revelation on the specific point, there is no explicit reason to believe it. But the latter question is much different, and I don't understand why a Latter-day Saint would object to or be threatened by the idea, whether or not s/he believed it.

I don't believe it is relevant in this lifetime for members to know such information. Even while reading this 26-page melodrama I had to keep 2 liter of diet coke next to me to keep myself awake. Believe me this was no page-turner.

I understood the question perfectly; I just hate answering this one among nonmembers. The problem here is the lack of accountability. I don't know who are active, sincere, full time members, who are new members, who are inactive members, and the folks who aren't interested at all or are apologists from other sites that misinterpret, construe, pull apart, and basically just want to put the church down. I liked this thread as it did cause me to reread the gospels in a hurry. Over all this has been a good experience.

I can't answer for the group as a whole. I do know that the Lords marriage at this point is not considered "doctrine." For me, and me alone, I do not like talking about this among nonmembers because I feel it's distracting from the overall message from the Church. In the short time searching for what I hoped was a conclusive answer, I found this.

I Have a Question - Ensign June 1997 - ensign

(I apologize for not knowing how to make all the neat html tags.)

The part I'd like to quote is, ""God has revealed everything necessary for our salvation,” said Elder Joseph B. Wirthlin of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles. “We should teach and dwell on the things that have been revealed and avoid delving into so-called mysteries.""

For me, speaking for myself again, I feel uncomfortable answering a question that an apostle hasn't answered. I know there are other refuting answers, someone can find where an apostle said Jesus was married, then we can say, "Not every statement made by a Church leader, past or present, necessarily constitutes doctrine", we add more gasoline to the fire, and the whole argument starts again. I would implore to our brethren that if they have such knowledge to please treat it with respect and dignity as God has blessed them for seeking it out. To those wanting to know I will say, "The Church has no official declaration on the matter." I believe there are so many, many other important things to learn from our Lord and Savior that contemplating on whether or not He was married is like hammering that extra nail into a board, it only makes the wood weaker. I would rather see pages and pages of members spreading testimony, service, what they did on family home evening, or how they home taught someone who really needed to hear the truth.

But to answer your question, to those not ready for the information might view it as anthropomorphizing the Savior, give him flaws, or give rational to someone wanting to sin. It may also imply that God has faults and therefore sins. Both ideas are reprehensible and I agree. The Father and the Son are blameless. Also, if God was ready to impart with such knowledge among mankind then He would do so, and the statement would be made clear without ambiguity.

Lastly, in the History of the Church 3:30, the Prophet said, "The fundamental principles of our religion are the testimony of the Apostles and Prophets, concerning Jesus Christ, that He died, was buried, and rose again the third day, and ascended into heaven; and all other things which pertain to our religion are only appendages to it." So from the Prophets point of view it is more important that the Lord lived, died, was buried, rose again on the third day, and ascended into heaven. If the Lord was married it is an appendage, and to most it is meat before milk. The Saints are not instructed to spread this unconfirmed revelation. The revelation thereof was omitted by the Father, and not accidently. This is only my opinion; others may choose to believe as they wish.

[Finrock]

In answer to the orignal post.

I don't know exactly why different people reject the idea that Jesus was married. There are many reasons, seemingly. I remember when I first heard the idea as a young man; and the truth is that I remember at the time the idea was shocking to me because I simply had never considered it before. Also, in hindsight, I understand that the idea was shocking to me because I didn't understand marriage or the sealing hardly at all. My understanding of the plan of salvation was also very poor. I did not have a proper undrestanding of the nature of God and of our relationship to him.

Today, based on my current understand of the sealing, of the plan of salvation, and of the nature of God and our relationship to him, I have no problems with the thought. Now, to be clear, I'm not saying that my understanding is necessarily right and that I have some special knowledge, but, to me it seems natural and right, even glorious. At the same time, as many have expressed already for themselves, I don't dwell on the idea and it is most definately only a peripheral belief.

Regards,

Finrock

[KevlarH]

There is a reference in our hymnbooks in the song Oh My Father, of a Heavenly Mother. "Father, Mother, may I meet you in your royal courts on high." If we are Gods spiritual children, and he is our Father, then it only stands to reason we also have a Heavenly Mother. Jesus taught in John 5 19,20 that he doeth nothing except what he has seen the Father do. Jesus came to this earth to make it possible for us to return to Heavenly Fathers presence, and also to experience things the rest of us have had to; like : Temptations, trials, learning, relationships, happiness, sadness, joy, and even pain, suffering and death. Is it really hard to imagine that in order to experience some of these things, he may have been married? In order to do as he knew his Father once did, that he may have went through experiences he knew that Heavenly Father once had to? Is it hard to imagine our Heavenly Father once had Parents also, and that this is part of the eternal way of things? You have to answer these questions yourselves. It makes sense to me. One might ask, why we do not mention Heavenly Mother hardly at all then? Heavenly Father allows us our free agency while learning here on earth. Many wayward children use God's name in vain and in a terrible disrespectful manner. If the same were to be done to Heavenly Mother, he might not hold back his wrath and punishment.

Edited August 5, 2012 by ldrkholt

[prisonchaplain]

I know we've parsed this some, but am I correct that nearly all LDS would find it fairly easy to believe that Heavenly Father has a wife, that a majority could accept that Jesus gained a wife at some point before or after mortality, but that Jesus' marrying while on earth is a matter of speculation, uncertainty, and for a significant number of LDS, it does seem "weird?"

[KevlarH]

I can't answer for all LDS. But my personal opinion would be that most LDS know that we have Heavenly Parents. As for when or if Jesus married while on earth, my opinion would be he did, but there is no scripture or doctrine proclaiming that . anan's post above gives a good explanation as to possibly why it isn't, very well.

Edited August 5, 2012 by ldrkholt

[Blackmarch]

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.

personally i think himbeing married makes a bit more sense than not. However it wasnt stated in the bible, nor has it been explicitely stated in modern revelation to the church.

ergo, it doesn't matter.

As for why anyone would get hotlivered over it is probably because popele get deeply entrenched into some thought or another on whatever side. probably without realising