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

[Anddenex]

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.

Oh Anatess, yep, my mother is just dumb, how sad and how unfortunate --- all sarcasm intended.

Either way, I will look into the different explanations and the word OUSIA, however it will probably be another word to describe as Elder Jeffrey R. Holland said, a notion that is "incomprehensible."

[Traveler]

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.

In general I believe the problem for most Traditional Christians goes back to “Original Sin”. From this doctrine flow a number of problems that divide LDS theology from many Traditional Christian philosophers. Our concept of “eternal marriage” and family is thus in conflict because most Christians do not believe marriage and family to be anything other than a fallen mortal sinful experience that will not be tolerated by G-d in the eternities.

The idea of sexual pleasure related to the sacredness of creation of life or as the scriptures say, the “breath of life” is considered thoughts of heresy completely removed from divine piety. Indeed, some have expressed (even to scorn) to me that polygamy and eternal marriage is nothing more than male hope for sexual pleasures for self as well as a form of eternal suppression and abuse of women.

I see this entire concept at the center of a vortex of public opinion. On one side is the world with the ideas of free love and sexual pleasures being sinless and on the other side are the Traditional Christians that believe sexual pleasure is the original sin and only allowed for now in marriage for the purpose of children. Both sides that oppose the LDS thinking have evolved a great deal just within the last 150+ years LDS thought has had any input.

Thus the idea that Jesus could have condescended to human pleasures in marriage is unbearable to a great many Christians. In addition the idea that Jesus could have offspring (children) is for many unthinkable. However, interesting enough, this is at the very core of recent ideas expressed in the “Da Vinci Code” and other publications. This entire conversation takes same sex attractions and sex in marriage to a whole different level. Even the “immaculate conception” becomes a problem of which the details are greatly problematic.

Many are troubled with the idea that Jesus would be married. But this is also at the core of what and how marriage is defined and for many a difficult problem in understanding the “Genesis” or creation of man. The question is interpreted differently according to varying differences in understanding that Adam was created quite differently that anyone living today. Even many of the arguments concerning evolution are also related.

Yes Vort – I think you have opened one he— (heck) of a can of worms and it appears to me that most have not even come close to addressing the issues in this thread.

The Traveler

Edited July 23, 2012 by Traveler

[Maureen]

Why would any Latter-day Saint object to the idea that Jesus was married?...

Here's my thoughts as to why LDS object to Jesus being married.

If the new and everlasting covenant (eternal marriage) was something new for only the "fullness of times" dispensation, then maybe during Jesus' time, marriage was not seen as "eternal"; therefore it was not a commandment, like it seems to be now.

Maybe some LDS believe this but I could be totally off in left field here.

M.

[prisonchaplain]

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.

The simple answer is that we believe that God is eternally unique. We do not believe that he once was as we are. Therefore Jesus, God-in-the-flesh, would seem to be taking advantage of his created mortal beings if he were to engage in marital relations with them.

Many LDS seem to intuitively understand this. After all, in the Anti-LDS movie The Godmakers, one of the most objectionable scenes is one that portrays LDS teaching to say that Father came to Mary to engage in marital relations (so she could birth Jesus). LDS reviewers say that this is false, disgusting, and an outrageous misrepresentation of your teaching. If it's okay for God to marry mortals, then why was the movie so wrong on this point?

[Vort]

Folks, I'm no thread Nazi, and I am as guilty as anyone for hijacking threads. But might I suggest that discussing the finer points of Trinitarian philosophy might be better accomplished in a different thread?

As for this thread, I would still like some explanations as to why a believing Latter-day Saint could possibly find the idea of a married Jesus objectionable.

[beefche]

Vort, I think if you look at this thread, the only "believing" LDS who is offended by the thought is Bensalem. And he isn't very forthcoming on his membership as LDS.

[Vort]

in the Anti-LDS movie The Godmakers, one of the most objectionable scenes is one that portrays LDS teaching to say that Father came to Mary to engage in marital relations (so she could birth Jesus). LDS reviewers say that this is false, disgusting, and an outrageous misrepresentation of your teaching. If it's okay for God to marry mortals, then why was the movie so wrong on this point?

Because the movie lied. It claimed that LDS doctrine taught this. LDS doctrine does not teach it. That is a lie. And the very idea of publicly speculating on such intimate matters is vulgar and coarse.

But the idea itself might be completely (or at least partially) true. I can see no reason why Jesus might not have been conceived in exactly the same way as anyone and everyone who has ever lived on this earth (perhaps ignoring for the moment recent in vitro fertilizations). I may not believe this particular idea, but neither do I disbelieve it. Seems a reasonable conjecture -- not the only reasonable conjecture, but one possibility.

I most certainly do believe that the act of sex is a divinely instituted, divinely approved thing in which the creative power of Godliness is explicitly manifest to us. And I most certainly do believe that God who sits in the heavens is an exalted man (though I don't know exactly what that means). So I find the idea you describe neither unreasonable nor philosophically/religiously/theistically abhorrent.

[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.

"Yes, I am" or "No, I am not" would have taken much less time than that verbal knot you just took the time to tie.

[Seminarysnoozer]

My objections are (from that other post):

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)

That last one you need to cross off the list; Gospel Principles page 218; "Adam and Eve were married by God before there was any death in the world. They had an eternal marriage. They taught the law of eternal marriage to their children and their children’s children. "

And the Prophet Kimball said; "It will be remembered how the Lord answered the hypocritical Sadducees who, trying to trap him, propounded this difficult problem.

The husband died leaving no posterity, and the wife married his brother who also died without seed. She in turn married a third brother, a fourth, a fifth, a sixth, and a seventh all in accordance with the law of Moses, and then the woman of the seventh husband died also. Now the frustrating question is:

“In the resurrection therefore, when they shall rise, whose wife shall she be of them? for the seven had her to wife.” (Mark 12:23.) The Redeemer’s answer was clear and concise and unmistakable:

“Do you not therefore err, because ye know not the scriptures, neither the power of God?” (Mark 12:24.)

And now, we ask you, what does this mean? The Sadducees were discussing matters about which they knew little or nothing. Was their accusation in his voice? Was he saying to the Sadducees, “Open your blind eyes and see. Open your stony hearts and understand.”?

My friends, do you understand the implications and truth of this statement of the Lord? Though somewhat veiled in scripture, it is clear and understandable when supported by modern revelation.

Dr. James E. Talmage writes: “The Lord’s meaning was clear, that in the resurrected state there can be no question among the seven brothers as to whose wife for eternity the woman should be, since all except the first had married her for the duration of mortal life only. … In the resurrection, there will be no marrying nor giving in marriage; for all questions of marital status must be settled before that time, under the authority of the Holy Priesthood, which holds the power to seal in marriage for both time and eternity.” (Jesus the Christ, p. 548.)

Undoubtedly, the first husband married the woman for eternity by a ceremony which was not limited by time. She became a widow at his demise until she should also die and join her husband. Now, she married brother number two, “until death do you part,” and it definitely parted them even before posterity, and he went into the spirit world through the veil and with no wife, for their contract also had been terminated by death. And brothers number three and four and five and six and finally number seven in turn all married her in temporary marriage, in which ceremonies were the limitations, “so long as you both shall live.” And death terminated what happiness they had had and their promise of future bliss."

It seems that President, Prophet and Seer Kimball believed eternal marriage was taught during Jesus day.

Edited July 23, 2012 by Seminarysnoozer

[Traveler]

The simple answer is that we believe that God is eternally unique. We do not believe that he once was as we are. Therefore Jesus, God-in-the-flesh, would seem to be taking advantage of his created mortal beings if he were to engage in marital relations with them.

Many LDS seem to intuitively understand this. After all, in the Anti-LDS movie The Godmakers, one of the most objectionable scenes is one that portrays LDS teaching to say that Father came to Mary to engage in marital relations (so she could birth Jesus). LDS reviewers say that this is false, disgusting, and an outrageous misrepresentation of your teaching. If it's okay for God to marry mortals, then why was the movie so wrong on this point?

I wonder why that is objectionable? Are you saying creation of human life is a dirty nasty thing? The point for me, is not about doctrine but how things are treated. The objection I have is that something believed to be very sacred is striped naked and exposed for shame.

It is like saying any doctrine that believes that the human creation is divine, wonderful, beautiful and sacred - and taking that to justify pornography. That is what is disgusting , outrageous and misrepresenting.

The Traveler

[Bensalem]

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

How is it evasive or vague? I answered all three questions with a "Yes".

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?

How am I reluctant or unwilling?

I didn't have time, yet I provided more information than requested.

Edited July 23, 2012 by Bensalem

[bytor2112]

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

As you posted on another thread:

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.

No, Exaltation, Eternal Life is the highest level of the Celestial Kingdom and the New and Everlasting Covenant of marriage is required. The two other "categories" as you refer to them are not Exaltation. So, NO, you are not correct.......

[Bensalem]

Vort, I think if you look at this thread, the only "believing" LDS who is offended by the thought is Bensalem. And he isn't very forthcoming on his membership as LDS.

Gee 'beefche', you asked me at 11:42 AM and I answered at 1:43. Can you cut me some slack?

[Bensalem]

"Yes, I am" or "No, I am not" would have taken much less time than that verbal knot you just took the time to tie.

The three yeses answer the three questions. I went on to provide more information than was asked.

It wasn't that I didn't have time to answer; it was I didn't have time to answer the way I wanted.

No verbal knot; no avoidance. I just had something to do this morning.

[Guest]

The three yeses answer the three questions. I went on to provide more information than was asked.

It wasn't that I didn't have time to answer; it was I didn't have time to answer the way I wanted.

No verbal knot; no avoidance. I just had something to do this morning.

There's another way of saying Yes, than just a simple Yes? I mean, I'm starting to get really curious. How else can you want to say Yes but not really just say Yes... I mean if somebody asks me - are you baptized LDS? My answer would be Yes. Plain and simple. Not, I don't have time to give you a better answer, so the answer is just Yes. It makes one believe that it's not really a Yes - but some mega-knot of a reason so that even if it sounds like a No, it's really a Yes. Or something.

See... I'm even starting to confuse myself.

<goes back to refill her popcorn>

[prisonchaplain]

And the very idea of publicly speculating on such intimate matters is vulgar and coarse.

I'm not defending the movie. Consider these words you have chosen. It is vulgar and coarse to speculate on God engaging in intimacy. Traditional Christians find it especially so to think of God doing so with one of his created beings.

I can see no reason why Jesus might not have been conceived in exactly the same way as anyone and everyone who has ever lived on this earth (perhaps ignoring for the moment recent in vitro fertilizations). I may not believe this particular idea, but neither do I disbelieve it. Seems a reasonable conjecture -- not the only reasonable conjecture, but one possibility.

Does it make sense to you why traditionalists, who believe that Jesus is co-equal with the Father, as an eternal member of the Godhead, who was never only a mortal human--why we would consider it objectionable to think that his Father was with Mary, and that she became pregnant through natural conception, rather than due to a spiritual miracle by the Holy Spirit?

I most certainly do believe that the act of sex is a divinely instituted, divinely approved thing in which the creative power of Godliness is explicitly manifest to us. And I most certainly do believe that God who sits in the heavens is an exalted man (though I don't know exactly what that means). So I find the idea you describe neither unreasonable nor philosophically/religiously/theistically abhorrent.

I can understand why LDS members might believe Jesus was married and that Mary conceived by her relationship with the Father, an exalted man. The error of the movie is in not giving the context of the doctrine. It was sensational, vulgar and coarse. But, for us traditionalists, the ideas still seem seedy, because we do not believe that the Father was once mortal.

[AnthonyB]

PC,

Although I agree with you, that I find hard to concieve Jesus to have been married, isn't there a big difference between Jesus being married and the idea of God the Father physically assisting in conceiving Jesus.

IF Jesus was married, it would have been a mutual covenant.

Mary when she conceived Jesus was already engaged to Joseph. A much more serious commitment in that culture then it is today.The idea of God the Father engaging in what has the appearance from my perspective of a seedy one night stand is detestable. I know others may view it differently but a one off encounter by someone in such a position of authority over her, when she is already engaged to another man just appears wrong to a degree way beyond Jesus being married does.

The first, I don't agree with largely because of the evidence isn't there to support it but I could accept a married Jesus if it was proved historically. The second I find a horrible idea, even if God the Father had a body, it was someone elses fiance, done outside any public covenant and a one off event by someone in position of ultimate authority over her.

Edited July 23, 2012 by AnthonyB

[Traveler]

I'm not defending the movie. Consider these words you have chosen. It is vulgar and coarse to speculate on God engaging in intimacy. Traditional Christians find it especially so to think of God doing so with one of his created beings.

Does it make sense to you why traditionalists, who believe that Jesus is co-equal with the Father, as an eternal member of the Godhead, who was never only a mortal human--why we would consider it objectionable to think that his Father was with Mary, and that she became pregnant through natural conception, rather than due to a spiritual miracle by the Holy Spirit?

I can understand why LDS members might believe Jesus was married and that Mary conceived by her relationship with the Father, an exalted man. The error of the movie is in not giving the context of the doctrine. It was sensational, vulgar and coarse. But, for us traditionalists, the ideas still seem seedy, because we do not believe that the Father was once mortal.

The problem for me is that many individuals have been born on earth (other than Jesus) even with the divine proclamation of angles - but when we realize the miracle of life; how can anyone (that believes that G-d is the creator) conclude that any conception (natural or otherwise) can be less than a "spiritual miracle by the Holy Spirit"? Why do Traditionalists insist that the two must be so easily separated? Why is that doctrine not shocking at all to a believer?

It appears to be to be a very serious disconnect to reality and truth.

The Traveler

[Bensalem]

No, Exaltation, Eternal Life is the highest level of the Celestial Kingdom and the New and Everlasting Covenant of marriage is required. The two other "categories" as you refer to them are not Exaltation. So, NO, you are not correct.......

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.

[Bensalem]

There's another way of saying Yes, than just a simple Yes? I mean, I'm starting to get really curious. How else can you want to say Yes but not really just say Yes... I mean if somebody asks me - are you baptized LDS? My answer would be Yes. Plain and simple. Not, I don't have time to give you a better answer, so the answer is just Yes. It makes one believe that it's not really a Yes - but some mega-knot of a reason so that even if it sounds like a No, it's really a Yes. Or something.

See... I'm even starting to confuse myself.

<goes back to refill her popcorn>

I was going to give the larger picture by including some of my testimony, but I think not. I'll just leave it with the answers provided.

[Bensalem]

PC,

Although I agree with you, that I find hard to concieve Jesus to have been married, isn't there a big difference between Jesus being married and the idea of God the Father physically assisting in conceiving Jesus.

IF Jesus was married, it would have been a mutual covenant.

Mary when she conceived Jesus was already engaged to Joseph. A much more serious commitment in that culture then it is today.The idea of God the Father engaging in what has the appearance from my perspective of a seedy one night stand is detestable. I know others may view it differently but a one off encounter by someone in such a position of authority over her, when she is already engaged to another man just appears wrong to a degree way beyond Jesus being married does.

The first, I don't agree with largely because of the evidence isn't there to support it but I could accept a married Jesus if it was proved historically. The second I find a horrible idea, even if God the Father had a body, it was someone elses fiance, done outside any public covenant and a one off event by someone in position of ultimate authority over her.

The difference is not in the act or the participants. For me it remains in the fact that scriptures support the miracle of conception but do not support Jesus taking an earthly wife.

[Traveler]

The difference is not in the act or the participants. For me it remains in the fact that scriptures support the miracle of conception but do not support Jesus taking an earthly wife.

My brother once said that the way to tell if someone understands or believes in compound interest is weather they pay it or receive it. What we "do" speaks volumes to the honesty of our doctrine (what we teach and preach).

Where in scripture do you arrive at the conclusion that Jesus does not believe in (or understand) marriage is of G-d?

The Traveler

[prisonchaplain]

The problem for me is that many individuals have been born on earth (other than Jesus) even with the divine proclamation of angles - but when we realize the miracle of life; how can anyone (that believes that G-d is the creator) conclude that any conception (natural or otherwise) can be less than a "spiritual miracle by the Holy Spirit"? Why do Traditionalists insist that the two must be so easily separated? Why is that doctrine not shocking at all to a believer?

It appears to be to be a very serious disconnect to reality and truth.

The Traveler

Perhaps instead of saying "spiritual miracle" I should have said "supernatural." Birth is a spiritual miracle. However, it is not supernatural. We believe that the conception of Jesus was supernatural.

[Traveler]

Perhaps instead of saying "spiritual miracle" I should have said "supernatural." Birth is a spiritual miracle. However, it is not supernatural. We believe that the conception of Jesus was supernatural.

Could you be specific? As I understand - Jesus had a father and a mother - what is supernatural about that? What concerns me is that scriptures are understood in a manner that "conception" somehow lessons divine involvement as any kind of possibility. That appears to be way overstating what we know and what G-d tells us - not just about Jesus but every child born in the human race - Jesus once was a little infant child born of Marry and G-d.

My point is - that we are all more like G-d by the miracle of birth and Jesus is the example.

The Traveler

[Bensalem]

My brother once said that the way to tell if someone understands or believes in compound interest is weather they pay it or receive it. What we "do" speaks volumes to the honesty of our doctrine (what we teach and preach).

Where in scripture do you arrive at the conclusion that Jesus does not believe in (or understand) marriage is of G-d?

The Traveler

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

You must be misunderstanding one of my posts.