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

[Bensalem]

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.

I'm thinking of starting a new thread: "Why would anyone abhor to discuss our Heavenly Mother".

[Bensalem]

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.

Sorry for not remembering your engagement of my comment on the "Glory Days" thread.

Both threads have educated me on the root of the problem (sorry again, I'm a slow learner). Please correct me if I'm wrong. Jesus had to be married before his mortal death because he was resurrected in three days and marriage does not occur after the resurrection of the dead.

(I'm not mentioning the fact that marriage is required for exaltation since I never disputed that point.)

This understanding is imposed by LDS revelation and Mark 12:18-27.

It all comes down to the limitations of this three day window of Christ's resurrection.

As it stands, this leaves only two options:

1) Jesus took an earthly and mortal wife.

2) A wife was sealed unto him by the Holy Spirit of promise and God fulfilled the promise of a wife in a celestial way while Jesus was still on earth.

Since I do not sustain the first purely terrestrial version, I stand witness to the second celestial miracle.

[Bini]

We do not believe Jesus is an exalted man. We believe that he is uniquely the eternal Son of God, the only true God. As such, for him to marry, and have marital relations with one of his created beings strikes us as seedy. One of the reasons the notorious "Godmakers" film was successful in stirring evangelical mistrust of LDS was the scene in which Heavenly Father is portrayed as coming in to be with Mary. It is a shocking scene. LDS who saw it were angered by the undertone...but based on our theology of humans as created beings (out of nothing), and God as uniquely God from eternity to eternity, it is difficult for us to perceive this any other way.

So, likewise, though Jesus was fully human, he remained the one and only Son of God--God himself. Remember that we view Jesus as equal to the Father, subordinate only in his deference to the Father.

That God chose to have Jesus come incarnate, in a virgin vessel is quite different from God chosing to mate with a created mortal. On the other hand, Catholicism does go an extra step in this matter, teaching that Mary was without sin.

Okay, initially I stood on the side of the fence that I simply wasn't bothered one way or the other regarding Jesus's marital status. If he were married, fine - if not, fine. But after reading this and thinking about it.. Man, that IS weird. To become involved with one of your creations in such manners, when it is imperfect and you are perfection. It does have a strange thought to it, for me.

[Bensalem]

Okay, initially I stood on the side of the fence that I simply wasn't bothered one way or the other regarding Jesus's marital status. If he were married, fine - if not, fine. But after reading this and thinking about it.. Man, that IS weird. To become involved with one of your creations in such manners, when it is imperfect and you are perfection. It does have a strange thought to it, for me.

That is exactly why I prefer the concept that a perfect (celestial) being came to Jesus in this life from the Father as fulfillment of a promise sealed in the Holy Spirit. (See post immediately before yours.)

[Vort]

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".

Alma 12:9

And now Alma began to expound these things unto him, saying: It is given unto many to know the mysteries of God; nevertheless they are laid under a strict command that they shall not impart only according to the portion of his word which he doth grant unto the children of men, according to the heed and diligence which they give unto him.

[Bensalem]

Alma 12:9

And now Alma began to expound these things unto him, saying: It is given unto many to know the mysteries of God; nevertheless they are laid under a strict command that they shall not impart only according to the portion of his word which he doth grant unto the children of men, according to the heed and diligence which they give unto him.

So it is a command, not a covenant. And judgment of "heed and dilegence" is granted.

It is akin to not feeding meat to those who are still nursing on milk.

[Seminarysnoozer]

As it stands, this leaves only two options:

1) Jesus took an earthly and mortal wife.

2) A wife was sealed unto him by the Holy Spirit of promise and God fulfilled the promise of a wife in a celestial way while Jesus was still on earth.

Since I do not sustain the first purely terrestrial version, I stand witness to the second celestial miracle.

Nobody who understands LDS doctrine would agree with a "purely terrestrial version". Like Prisonchaplain has pointed out several times our religion does not believe in "created" de novo mortal beings. We believe that we are both spirit, eternal and pure beings, children of our Heavenly Father and in this life temporarily with a mortal body. I am not my mortal body, I am a child of God.

For you to make a statement that #1 choice is a "purely terrestrial version" makes me wonder if you really have a testimony that we are all children of God, existing as spirit children before this life. Any "mortal wife" choice is not just mortal. Man sees the outside, God sees us as our true selves including our potential and future. You may look at a "mortal wife" as terrestrial, I can testify to you that God does not see us as man does.

The eternal plan of happiness allows us to descend to move forward and onward. I can tell you there are many souls who have passed through this life that have never strayed off the straight and narrow, that have never left hold of the iron rod. Are they perfect while here? No. But they are repented and as such are made pure and clean, white as snow which makes them way more than terrestrial beings. If one truly has a testimony of the redeeming ability of our Savior then one can look beyond this telestial existence to the real work of our God which is to bring to pass the eternal life of man. God sees the value of a single soul because He has that eternal perspective. Too bad it is so hard for us to see that. This is why Jesus had no problem seeing the leper as more than what man sees him, or the sinner as more than what man sees him. Jesus would have had the ability to see a Celestial being in the making as a potential eternal mate more than we would have the ability to judge such a thing.

Edited July 25, 2012 by Seminarysnoozer

[skalenfehl]

Alma 12:9

And now Alma began to expound these things unto him, saying: It is given unto many to know the mysteries of God; nevertheless they are laid under a strict command that they shall not impart only according to the portion of his word which he doth grant unto the children of men, according to the heed and diligence which they give unto him.

+1

For me, it is a moot point. I've seen discussions on this topic (whether or not Jesus was married in His mortal life) that went just as far. Speaking of mysteries, it is indeed given to anyone to learn as much as they will according to their heed and diligence as Alma expounded. And it is given to us to increase our joy in this life. We only have a brief glimpse of Lehi's experience of the fullness of the Father as given to us by Nephi. I can only imagine what Lehi's own record might have contained had we the 116 pages that Martin Harris lost.

D&C 42:61 If thou shalt ask, thou shalt receive revelation upon revelation, knowledge upon knowledge, that thou mayest know the mysteries and peaceable things—that which bringeth joy, that which bringeth life eternal.

It is given to any of us to receive the fullness of the gospel as indicated in the Book of Mormon and also the Doctrine and Covenants and peer into heaven. It was given to Lehi, to Alma, to Joseph Smith, Sidney Rigdon, and no doubt to many others.

D&C 76

7 And to them will I reveal all mysteries, yea, all the hidden mysteries of my kingdom from days of old, and for ages to come, will I make known unto them the good pleasure of my will concerning all things pertaining to my kingdom.

8 Yea, even the wonders of eternity shall they know, and things to come will I show them, even the things of many generations.

9 And their wisdom shall be great, and their understanding reach to heaven; and before them the wisdom of the wise shall perish, and the understanding of the prudent shall come to naught.

10 For by my Spirit will I enlighten them, and by my power will I make known unto them the secrets of my will—yea, even those things which eye has not seen, nor ear heard, nor yet entered into the heart of man.

[Anddenex]

Okay, initially I stood on the side of the fence that I simply wasn't bothered one way or the other regarding Jesus's marital status. If he were married, fine - if not, fine. But after reading this and thinking about it.. Man, that IS weird. To become involved with one of your creations in such manners, when it is imperfect and you are perfection. It does have a strange thought to it, for me.

It is definitely weird, and the first time I had heard this was on my mission. However, it is not weird to have a perfect being to become involved with an imperfect being. I personally feel, it puts God in a box. If God can kill all of Egypt's firstborn sons, and the children of Israel of Israel's firstborn sons, who did not follow the specific guidelines provided. I am reminded of the Lord's words in Isaiah, "My ways are higher than your ways, my thoughts higher than your thoughts...."

Remember, Moroni 10: 32 - 33, which states that in Christ we all become perfect and without spot. So, this idea of perfection becoming involved with imperfection wouldn't be true, because Mary, a virgin and fair, surely was "perfect" in Christ, thus perfection would have been involved with perfection.

However, I personally don't believe it either, not because of perfection, but because I believe it denies the virgin birth. Yet, when I stand before God, if he were to tell me that this is how it happened, well then, that is how it happened. I am sure, you would probably feel the same way, if God said, this is how it happened. It kinda ends all argument.

[Bini]

I am reminded of the Lord's words in Isaiah, "My ways are higher than your ways, my thoughts higher than your thoughts...."

That's really the bottom line.

Still, within my narrow understanding of how God works, it is weird! I just have a hard time accepting that a god would marry and have marital relations with a mortal and lesser being, regardless if that individual is pure of heart, he or she is still not a god.

[prisonchaplain]

I appreciate that Bini and Anddenex understand how the idea of Jesus marrying, or of Heavenly Father having marital relations with mortals, can seem odd--especially to Trinitarians. Very few people change their opinions because of forums. However, if we can gain a better feel for where others are coming from then we've done well.

[Anddenex]

That's really the bottom line.

Still, within my narrow understanding of how God works, it is weird! I just have a hard time accepting that a god would marry and have marital relations with a mortal and lesser being, regardless if that individual is pure of heart, he or she is still not a god.

Me too, I was trying to make that point clear, but I may not have, yet I feel it is perfectly plausible that he did also.

I just realized in my last post, I transitioned from one thought to another without even recognizing it. Ignore the virgin birth part, that is a different transition of thought from what I was originally writing about.

RRRR...hate when that happens.

Edited July 25, 2012 by Anddenex

[Bini]

Me too, I was trying to make that point clear, but I may not have, yet I feel it is perfectly plausible that he did also.

I just realized in my last post, I transitioned from one thought to another without even recognizing it. Ignore the virgin birth part, that is a different transition of thought from what I was originally writing about.

RRRR...hate when that happens.

Haha. No, I understood you just fine :] We are on the same line of thinking I do believe.

[beefche]

But, you would be ok if God had marital relations with another exalted being who is His equal?

[Bini]

But, you would be ok if God had marital relations with another exalted being who is His equal?

Yes, another god is easier for me to comprehend, versus marital relations with a non-god.

[Suzie]

Yes, another god is easier for me to comprehend, versus marital relations with a non-god.

Why?

[Bini]

Why?

Because it's hard to believe that a god would have marital relations with a mortal and lesser being. God is perfection, we, all of us are imperfect.

[anan]

I think it’s amazing that in light of OP’s hundreds of incidences of calling people liars, bulling just to get his point across (not the Church’s opinion, just his), accusing members not being LDS, using straw man arguments, watching blatantly say they are going to leave the Church after they talk to him (I think he enjoys these moments), judging people on forum, the sexual jokes and puns he’s made, and the six year old tantrums he throws when someone has a good counterpoint (I watched him open a several threads to start a new debate after they were just closed), that this man can now speculate...Well by that miracle alone Jesus MUST HAVE A WIFE. There isn’t one clear passage in the accepted Church cannons revealing Jesus having been married. And it wouldn’t matter anyway. Our judgement will be passed whether or not our Lord and Savior is espoused. Even if God Himself is married it does not matter: if God wanted everyone to know I’m certain the person who designed everything we see and touch would find a way to send such a prophetic message.

So Vort, please continue to speculate on how you think Jesus is married even though the Church does not have an answer for us yet. And please continue to rant through many more pages while others wait patently, supplying you with polite answers, which you refused to afford dozens of other members.

[Vort]

So Vort, please continue to speculate on how you think Jesus is married even though the Church does not have an answer for us yet.

Seriously? Have you even read the thread?

By the way, I think it's rather cowardly to create a new sock puppet just so you can criticize someone. You have violated both rule #3 and rule #7.

[Anddenex]

Because it's hard to believe that a god would have marital relations with a mortal and lesser being. God is perfection, we, all of us are imperfect.

I could be wrong with beefche's intent and question, however if I understood her correctly, you have already answered your own question, and it may no longer appear as weird.

Correct me if I am wrong pertaining to your intent beefche, but I think the question results, that in the end, are we all not perfect, and would no longer be seen as an imperfect but exhalted being?

Thus, if Christ did marry, in the end his partner would be equal, because of her exhaltation, who would no longer be a lesser being or mortal.

If I understood your question right beefche, it was a question that already provided an answer.

[Bini]

I could be wrong with beefche's intent and question, however if I understood her correctly, you have already answered your own question, and it may no longer appear as weird.

Correct me if I am wrong pertaining to your intent beefche, but I think the question results, that in the end, are we all not perfect, and would no longer be seen as an imperfect but exhalted being?

Thus, if Christ did marry, in the end his partner would be equal, because of her exhaltation, who would no longer be a lesser being or mortal.

If I understood your question right beefche, it was very poignant.

Ah okay. Well in this case, it is more comprehensible for me, however, still a bit weird. My reasoning being that God created us, without his hand we would not be, and the idea that an all mighty creator would pursue one of his creations is a bit.. Odd. Why not a an already existing God and one that was not created by His hand?

[beefche]

No, I was trying to figure out if people are opposed to God having marital relations, in general. Or if it is just thought with someone mortal.

And what beings did God not create?

[HiJolly]

Well, 'create' is often used with 'out of nothing'. We know that we (and any woman Jesus might have married) have essentially existed from all eternity into all eternity.

I think a lot of this has to do with our belief that God and man are both physical and of the same family, where most other Christians don't believe that at all.

HiJolly

[Heber13]

It would be hard for me to think of another being, even another exalted being, that would be Christ's equal.

[Vort]

It would be hard for me to think of another being, even another exalted being, that would be Christ's equal.

Yet that is the scriptural promise.