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

[Bensalem]

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.

But 'Bytor' argued that eternal life is exaltation, that the two are inseparable, that eternal life does not apply outside of exaltation. Whereas, I agree with you that, "Eternal life in Christ is attained through the Atonement."

I have acknowledged the unique exaltation obtained by married pairs in the priesthood. I am in concurrence with that teaching.

Where I differ with 'Bytor' is that I use the term exalted outside of the marriage limitation. I have stated that even single priests and the unmarried daughters of Israel are exalted, that they have eternal lives, and share in God's divinity. 'Bytor' disagreed with these assertions.

I believe we can be exalted in degrees. I pointed out to "Bytor' that the whole celestial kingdom is exalted, not just the married pairs in the highest exaltation. LDS doctrine teaches that the celestial kingdom has three glories within it. And I could argue that I am using the word exalted to be synonymous to the word glory, but so did God in D&C 124:9 when He said, "And again, I will visit and soften their hearts, many of them for your good, that ye may find grace in their eyes, that they may come to the light of truth, and the Gentiles to the exaltation or lifting up of Zion."

If God can say that the whole of Zion will be exalted than so can I.

[Bensalem]

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.

Thank you for your reasoned analysis. You have correctly identified the issue between 'Bytor' and myself. I hope my previous post resolves the issue and we can move on.

[Bensalem]

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

I'll stand by the voice of heaven to my heart, but I will not close the book toward justification of my words. Please see two posts back.

[Bensalem]

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]"

The link also says:

“The Bible is silent on the issue of Jesus' marital state, and there has been no modern revelation stating he was or was not married. This leaves the issue an open question. Some Latter-day Saints believe he was married, but the Church has no position on the subject.”

[bytor2112]

Eternal Life and Exaltation are the same thing. Eternal Life is the kind of life that God lives and the ONLY way to live the life that God Lives is by entering into the highest level of the Celestial Kingdom, which is to receive Eternal Life and exaltation.

Bruce R. McConkie could be wrong.

Yes he could be, but not in this instance. If a man or woman cannot have Eternal increase he cannot have obtained Eternal Life or Exaltation. Only in the highest level of the Celestial Kingdom can this occur........

I am not wrong, Bensalem just doesn't understand or feels compelled to continue to cling to false notions that suit his unsupported non doctrinal notions.

No big surprise, people have confused pure doctrine in favor of man made beliefs through out history.

[prisonchaplain]

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.

This actually helps me...I think I can get us to solid mutual understanding now. The one nudge I'd offer is that it's not only dedicated Anti-LDS folks--most Christians--even the "building bridges" kind--have a very difficult time with this particular difference. Intellectually, I can understand that if I believed Father and Jesus were exalted men, then they might conceivably mate with divinely chosen mortals. The idea really rubs against my traditional beliefs though. My sense is that you understand that...so kudos to you.

[Traveler]

I'll stand by the voice of heaven to my heart, but I will not close the book toward justification of my words. Please see two posts back.

The point of this thread was the rejection of the idea that Jesus was married. Or could I add (currently married)? My point is not so much to convince you as to open your heart to that possibility.

Why? Because it is my belief that in our day and age we reject too many of the eternal principles that should be a part of our understanding of the covenant of marriage and commitment to family.

With the current understanding of marriage and willingness to accept divorce - I doubt very much that Jesus would have any part of it. Perhaps our differing view of marriage has resulted from our experience.

The Traveler

[Traveler]

This actually helps me...I think I can get us to solid mutual understanding now. The one nudge I'd offer is that it's not only dedicated Anti-LDS folks--most Christians--even the "building bridges" kind--have a very difficult time with this particular difference. Intellectually, I can understand that if I believed Father and Jesus were exalted men, then they might conceivably mate with divinely chosen mortals. The idea really rubs against my traditional beliefs though. My sense is that you understand that...so kudos to you.

I think the problem is in understanding statements of "image", "likeness" and "kind" along with the extent of the term "our Father in Heaven". Perhaps - as I said in a previous post - maybe it is not so much a difference of interpretation of scripture as it is our individual experience with the covenant of marriage.

The Traveler

[Bensalem]

The point of this thread was the rejection of the idea that Jesus was married. Or could I add (currently married)? My point is not so much to convince you as to open your heart to that possibility.

Why? Because it is my belief that in our day and age we reject too many of the eternal principles that should be a part of our understanding of the covenant of marriage and commitment to family.

With the current understanding of marriage and willingness to accept divorce - I doubt very much that Jesus would have any part of it. Perhaps our differing view of marriage has resulted from our experience.

The Traveler

After all I've said on this thread (and the one I started before this one) about the marriage of Jesus, why would you have to convince me that he is married? Of course, he is (now) married. We could not be Christ's spirit children born in the Church if he was not married. I just don't think he was married to an earthly wife 2000 years ago.

I said in one of my posts, he could have been sealed to a wife by the Holy Spirit of promise and that marriage could have been consummated in a celestial way 2000 years ago, but nobody followed up with a comment.

As far as "reject(ing) to many of the eternal principles that should be a part of our understanding of the covenant of marriage and commitment to family", I would point out that I acknowledged both the unique form of exaltation married pairs represents and the promise of exaltation God made for all in Zion (His commitment to family). What was dropped by others was the latter, I hope I refreshed the idea of a larger exaltation outside of eternal marriage with D&C 124:9.

Edited July 24, 2012 by Bensalem

[mordorbund]

I said in one of my posts, he could have been sealed to a wife by the Holy Spirit of promise and that marriage could have been consummated in a celestial way 2000 years ago, but nobody followed up with a comment.

Nobody will post again:

I struggle to understand the argument that a married (to a mortal) Jesus is somehow sullied or less-than-god. He had the full mortal experience. He ate, he sweat, I'm certain he defecated. I don't think these profane activities degraded him any. Marrying a mortal is certainly not very god-like (in a modern-traditional sense, older myths have such trysts all the time), but neither is death by torture (which even the older myths generally avoid (well, excepting a token corn-king))!

And of course the Atonement is the ultimate in commingling the unworthy with the worthy. The sinless God was spiritually raped by your transgressions. So I don't see any issues on the "but she's not worthy" front.

Regarding the general notion that we should either come out in open opposition to the teaching or fully embrace it, I'm afraid that can't be done. It hasn't been revealed to us one way or the other. And that absence of public revelation leaves room for both doctrines (Jesus was(n't) married). The arguments in favor of a married, mortal Jesus is

1) that being sealed to a spouse is required for exaltation

2) such sealing can only be performed in this life (otherwise we wouldn't have to do it for the dead), and

3) Jesus has received his exaltation

The classic supporting example is that Jesus still had to get baptized, despite being sinless, and despite being the head of his own church. Additionally, early apostles have openly speculated that Jesus was married - and what's more - to more than one woman!

I shared with you the scriptural support. It starts with marriage being a requirement for exaltation, is further built up around the principle that marriage is an ordinance that must take place in this life (else why do it for the dead? "for in the resurrection they neither marry, nor are given in marriage"), and concludes with Jesus is resurrected. All three are scriptural supports for a marriage at the time of Jesus' mortality.

I don't know how effective my posts have been. I feel like I've brought logic to a crazy-fight.

You seem to approve of the "absence of evidence" argument, so your reasoning fails when you say Jesus is literally married (or will be married), but the ordinance did not happen in this life. There is no example anywhere in the scriptures of a marriage ordinance performed on a resurrected person.

[Finrock]

Good afternoon Vort! I hope that you are doing well. :)

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

Another reason is probably the idea that marriage implies sex and many people have problems with the idea that Jesus might have had sexual relations with his wife.

Regards,

Finrock

[Vort]

Another reason is probably the idea that marriage implies sex and many people have problems with the idea that Jesus might have had sexual relations with his wife.

This is an insightful answer that ultimately begs the question: Why would any Latter-day Saint object to such a thing? Where is the problem in the idea?

[Finrock]

This is an insightful answer that ultimately begs the question: Why would any Latter-day Saint object to such a thing? Where is the problem in the idea?

Perhaps it is the stigma associate with sex. I hypothesise that because sex is abused so prevalently through-out society it is associated with being base, crude, and being subject to your passions and lusts.

But, that is only my guess. I do not know the real answer.

Regards,

Finrock

[carlimac]

I didn't read through all these posts so if this has been brought up already, beg your pardon. I believe and have no problem with Jesus being married while he was on earth. The only question I have is this: Would any of his offspring be part diety, too? If so, that doesn't really work out in the Plan for human beings on this earth.

[Vort]

I didn't read through all these posts so if this has been brought up already, beg your pardon. I believe and have no problem with Jesus being married while he was on earth. The only question I have is this: Would any of his offspring be part diety, too? If so, that doesn't really work out in the Plan for human beings on this earth.

Yes, if you believe the Startrekkian version of the gospel, where Jesus is a half-breed between humans and Vulcans/God. But if you believe that God and we are of a type, then there is no problem.

[prisonchaplain]

Vort...even if Jesus is an exalted man, wouldn't him marrying a mortal be like a modern marrying a cro magnan?

[Dove]

After all I've said on this thread (and the one I started before this one) about the marriage of Jesus, why would you have to convince me that he is married? Of course, he is (now) married. We could not be Christ's spirit children born in the Church if he was not married. I just don't think he was married to an earthly wife 2000 years ago.

Bensalem,

I have always understood that being the Savior's "spirit children" was more of an allegory than hard fact. Meaning, we became the Savior's spirit children when we accepted Him as the Savior and accepted the atonement in our lives. There is also the allegory of being "born again." Which is experiencing a change of hear to such an extent that the natural man dies within us and we are born to a new life of not desiring to sin anymore...You seem to be taking the reference of us being His "spirit children" literally, as though we were born of Him rather than our Heavenly Father. I respectfully disagree with this.

Also, it makes perfect sense to me that the Savior married while here on earth, if I see it in the landscape our doctrine that, in order for one to receive the highest degree of the celestial kingdom, i.e., exaltation, one has to be sealed to a spouse for time and all eternity. This is a key doctrine to our religion. It strongly follows that the Savior would follow that requirement during His mortal life in order to fulfill all righteousness.

I'm just curious, did anyone follow the link I provided about the identity of Mother in Heaven? It goes a great deal into what's being discussed here~ Just curious

Dove

Edited July 25, 2012 by Dove
clarification of some parts

[Vort]

Vort...even if Jesus is an exalted man, wouldn't him marrying a mortal be like a modern marrying a cro magnan?

No. We are not a primitive, unevolved version of God. We are a weak and imperfect version, a condition due to our sphere.

I do not understand the exact nature of the relationship between God's physicality and ours. I do not understand what "exaltation" means, exactly, in a physical sense. I certainly do not understand exactly what it means and what all the implications are that God is "literally" the Father of the Son. I do not understand the condescension of God, wherein Jehovah tabernacled himself in corruptible flesh and walked and ate and drank and breathed and physically LIVED among us, with all that implies (which I assume very probably includes marriage and parenthood).

These things are part of what is known as "the mystery of Godliness". They are given to all those who are worthy and who seek them diligently. Clearly, I am not worthy and/or have not sought the knowledge with sufficient diligence. But the fact that I do not understand these things does not mean they cannot be understood. I am confident that there are those who do understand, though of course they are under covenant not to share their private revelation with the world.

So I cannot explain what you ask, nor can I answer your questions. But what you ask can be explained, and your questions can be answered. Of that I have no doubt.

[Vort]

I'm just curious, did anyone follow the link I provided about the identity of Mother in Heaven? It goes a great deal into what's being discussed here~ Just curious

I followed the link. It leads to the middle of an 11-page discussion on "Heavenly Mother", a topic that I frankly abhor to discuss. It is not immediately apparent to me which part or parts of that discussion you think are relevant to the present matter.

[Dove]

Thanks, Vort;

Yes, it leads to a quote by Joseph F. Smith~ A concept being discussed here on how the Savior was actually conceived. I think it was JAG who quoted it; but, said that it was no longer a doctrine of our church. However, he didn't provide evidence that it was no longer doctrine. So, I wonder what our belief on it is?

[pam]

It has always been my belief that Jesus was married while here on earth.

[Vort]

Thanks, Vort;

Yes, it leads to a quote by Joseph F. Smith~ A concept being discussed here on how the Savior was actually conceived. I think it was JAG who quoted it; but, said that it was no longer a doctrine of our church. However, he didn't provide evidence that it was no longer doctrine. So, I wonder what our belief on it is?

I see what you're talking about. President (Joseph F.) Smith expressed his understanding on the topic of Jesus' conception. This is not and never was "Church doctrine", even then, as I understand Church doctrine. Our Church is a house of order and not of confusion; a man, even an apostle or a Church president, stating his understanding or opinion on a matter cannot make Church doctrinal teaching. It is true that leaders at that time were much more prone to give their own interpretations to scriptures and doctrine in answering whatever questions were put to them; today's authorities tend to be much more tight-lipped and circumspect, as generations of experience has taught them.

I happen to agree with President Smith's reasoning, if not the confidence with which he embraces the conclusion. I am not as convinced as President Smith that such teachings define The Way Things Really Are. But I also cannot see why any believing Latter-day Saint would find them offensive or consider them impossible or sacrilegious -- which of course is one reason for this thread, a larger issue arising from the idea that Jesus may have been married.

[Dove]

I understand what you're saying. So, Joseph F. Smith said this when he was not the president of the church? Perhaps, as you said, that really doesn't matter, even if he said it as a prophet~

Several years ago, I read a talk by, I believe, Pres. Benson or Hinckley, which emphasized basically the same things in the quote given of Joseph F. Smith, that the Savior is the literal begotten Son of God. I would like to find that talk again; but, doubt I could.

A side note, two years back I gave a Sunday school lesson to 12 year old young men (I was called in at the last minute to do so, the teacher just didn't show up. I wonder if it was because of the lesson topic~) on how Heavenly Father was the Savior's literal Father. I focused on why it was so important (as the manual said to do so) that the Savior had Heavenly Father as His example. I'm almost sure I could find that lesson again, if it is important to you, or anyone else, that it be found.

Edited July 25, 2012 by Dove

[Dove]

Here is one reference to this effect;

https://www.lds.org/manual/teachings-joseph-f-smith/chapter-40?lang=eng&query=jesus+christ+literal+son+heavenly+father

[Bensalem]

I am confident that there are those who do understand, though of course they are under covenant not to share their private revelation with the world.

Please explain. I went through the entire 'program' of the LDS church including the Temple ordinances and don't remember ever promising "not to share (my) private revelation(s) with the world".