Jesus exaltation and marriage

[AnthonyB]

It was stated on the thread on "if Jesus was married", that since marriage is part of exaltation then Jesus must have been married. Almost as if his time on earth recorded in the NT was essential for exaltation to the Godhead. However I thought LDS believed Jesus was the OT Jehovah and that he was already eternal God, creator of this world before he was born into the world.

Basically (in LDS thought) if embodiement and marriage is essential to celestial elevation, and since Jesus was already fully celestially elevated before his incarnation, then he must have already been embodied and married before his coming to redeem mankind.

[estradling75]

We also believe that baptism is essential for exaltation... While we have no record of Christ getting or being married, but the Bible is very clear on his baptism. Thus we use the reasons given the bible for Christ's baptism to extrapolate out to the other ordinances we consider necessary (like being sealed aka married)

The bible teaches that he was baptized to "Fulfill all righteousness."

While mortal there were things Christ needed to do or finish up. The biggest one was the Atonement itself... The taking upon himself all the sins of the world. The fact that he had yet to do so in Old Testament times didn't stop people from gaining forgiveness of their sins. They had to look forward in faith believing that it would happen and that was enough for the Premortal Jehovah (aka Christ) to forgive and apply the Atonement to them. Which Atonement had not happened yet, but they could act as if it already had.

Clearly in Christ case there is plenty of evidence that he got to act on things he would do before he really did them. (According to LDS understanding) Therefore it is not that hard to see Christ acting in a Exalted capacity when he still needed to 'Fulfill all righteousness' in mortality. There was simply no doubt that he would do so when the time was right.

[AnthonyB]

Thanks,

I had presumed the conditions for exaltation had to be completed before exaltation could occur. The idea of latter fullfilling the conditions never occurred to me. So I presume the Holy Spirit will at some stage follow the same path of "fulfilling all righteousness" and become embodied, baptised and married?

[estradling75]

That would make sense and logically follow... But please note... Make sense and logically follow is a far cry from revealed word... Which we are very much lacking in when it comes to the Holy Spirit's path and even Christ's path. We are very much speculating on how it is all going to unfold. Right now we really just need to have faith that it is all under control and makes total sense. We just don't have all the pieces or understanding now

[Vort]

It was stated on the thread on "if Jesus was married",

Anthony, are you referring to this thread? If so, please realize that you are mistaken. The thread is not and never was about whether Jesus was married. Rather, it was asking why Latter-day Saints might find the idea objectionable. I was careful not to make the thread about whether people believed Jesus was married, or even to state an opinion on the matter.

that since marriage is part of exaltation then Jesus must have been married. Almost as if his time on earth recorded in the NT was essential for exaltation to the Godhead. However I thought LDS believed Jesus was the OT Jehovah and that he was already eternal God, creator of this world before he was born into the world.

The latter part is true. The former part may well be part of the speculation or personal beliefs of some Latter-day Saints.

Basically (in LDS thought) if embodiement and marriage is essential to celestial elevation, and since Jesus was already fully celestially elevated before his incarnation, then he must have already been embodied and married before his coming to redeem mankind.

This is reasonable and even logical when stated as a syllogism, as you have done. But Latter-day Saints realize (well, most do) that our understanding of eternal things is partial and incomplete. As far as we know, people do not live multiple mortal lives here on earth. As far as we know, once a person is exalted, s/he is exalted for all eternity and does not go back and become mortal again.

Now, many Latter-day Saints, even General Authorities, have privately believed variations on this or even things different from this. The fact is (or at least my understanding of the facts is) that we have no specific revelation on this type of thing. We have the general rule and outline of the plan of salvation, and we generally understand how it applies to us and what is expected of us. Beyond that, the mechanics and specific operations of such things are not publicly revealed. You are suggesting that a fully exalted Jehovah abandoned his exalted state to retake upon himself flesh and carry out the atonement. This is so far beyond revealed truth that it cannot possibly qualify as LDS doctrine of any sort, to any degree.

So the answer to what you say is: That's reasonable, according to what has been publicly revealed, but we don't really know. And those who do know by personal revelation are keeping their mouths shut, as they ought.

[Maureen]

...You are suggesting that a fully exalted Jehovah abandoned his exalted state to retake upon himself flesh and carry out the atonement. This is so far beyond revealed truth that it cannot possibly qualify as LDS doctrine of any sort, to any degree...

This scripture comes to mind:

You should have the same attitude toward one another that Christ Jesus had,

who though he existed in the form of God

did not regard equality with God

as something to be grasped,

but emptied himself

by taking on the form of a slave,

by looking like other men,

and by sharing in human nature.

He humbled himself,

by becoming obedient to the point of death

– even death on a cross!

As a result God exalted him

and gave him the name

that is above every name,

so that at the name of Jesus

every knee will bow

– in heaven and on earth and under the earth –

and every tongue confess

that Jesus Christ is Lord

to the glory of God the Father.

(Philippians 2:5-11)

NET Bible : The Biblical Studies Foundation

M.

[AnthonyB]

Vort,

Thanks for your response. I apologize that my summation of your original post was inappropriate, I suppose I was writting what the post got me thinking about.

So do LDS beleive (or is it just an opinion) that Jehovah wasn't fully exalted God before his incarnation?

His baptism "to fulfill all righteousness" was it for the remission of sins? (I would presume not)

I suppose my questioning is that the plan of salvation appears to me to not line up very well with what I understand about the members of the Godhead. I am just trying to understand how LDS understand that. (estradling75 posts did help explain one of the quanderies I had)

I come from a Christian faith tradition that is not big on official doctrine. The idea of having official doctrine people (GA's) and official doctrine explanations (outside of scripture) is foreign to me. I tend to veiw that what the church believes is what the people in the church believe, since the people of God are the church not any heirachy. If I have a magisterium it is the NT as mediated through the cumulative voice of the people of God for the last 2000 years.

[norah63]

What happened to the wedding supper, I thought the church was the bride of Christ.

Must be missing something here.

[Just_A_Guy]

Anthony, I don't think Mormon doctrine really gets into whether Jesus was a "full-fledged" god prior to His birth. We know He was God, by virtue of what He would in fact do at a future date. Beyond that, our scriptures are silent.

Being sinless, of course, Jesus' baptism was not for the remission of His own sins but rather as a token of His obedience to the Father and as an example for all of us to follow. See the Book of Mormon, 2 Nephi chapter 31.

Norah, Mormons are aware of and embrace the idea of Christ-as-Bridegroom; but don't necessarily think this precludes the idea that Christ could have also been married to one individual woman in a conventional husband-wife relationship.

[Vort]

So do LDS beleive (or is it just an opinion) that Jehovah wasn't fully exalted God before his incarnation?

I know of no specific doctrine on this point.

What is clear to me is that our concept of who and what God is still leaves much to the imagination. We as Latter-day Saints claim to have great knowledge not had in the rest of the world -- and we do. But we don't know everything, or even a significant portion thereof. 0.01% is far larger than 0.00001%, but it's still only a tiny fraction of the whole.

His baptism "to fulfill all righteousness" was it for the remission of sins? (I would presume not)

I believe it was, since that is part of the covenant. But of course, Jesus had no sins to remit. So whether Jesus' baptism was to that end is purely academic.

I suppose my questioning is that the plan of salvation appears to me to not line up very well with what I understand about the members of the Godhead. I am just trying to understand how LDS understand that. (estradling75 posts did help explain one of the quanderies I had)

I did not take offense at what you wrote, and I hope I didn't sound like I did. My earlier correction of you regarding my other thread was a clarification; obviously, despite my efforts, you were not the only one to misunderstand the purpose and subject of that thread.

I come from a Christian faith tradition that is not big on official doctrine. The idea of having official doctrine people (GA's) and official doctrine explanations (outside of scripture) is foreign to me. I tend to veiw that what the church believes is what the people in the church believe, since the people of God are the church not any heirachy. If I have a magisterium it is the NT as mediated through the cumulative voice of the people of God for the last 2000 years.

As I expect you know, we do not believe in or accept the idea of a "Priesthood of all believers". The Priesthood is the specific authority of God, delegated by him upon his servants through the laying on of hands. We do not believe in establishing doctrine by majority vote. Most of us consider that a strength of our religion.

[Vort]

What happened to the wedding supper, I thought the church was the bride of Christ.

Must be missing something here.

It sounds like you are taking the figurative image of "the bride of Christ" too literally. If you believe it to be literal, then I would be interested to know, for example, which parts of the Church correspond specifically to individual intimate female body parts, and in what manner the marriage is to be consummated.

[Just_A_Guy]

It sounds like you are taking the figurative image of "the bride of Christ" too literally. If you believe it to be literal, then I would be interested to know, for example, which parts of the Church correspond specifically to individual intimate female body parts, and in what manner the marriage is to be consummated.

Agree that it's not literal, but . . .

Yowza!

[Vort]

Agree that it's not literal, but . . .

Yowza!

My point is not to be vulgar or even provocative. My point is that I have heard several times that "Jesus could not have been married because the Church is his bride." Setting aside for the moment issues of polygamy :), this is so obviously a weak argument that it begs to be put to rest. No one can seriously believe that the imagery is literal, so using it as a reason to discount a married Jesus is just silly.

[norah63]

Thank you for keeping the topic spiritual. Sex wasen't on my mind.

I just asked about the bride of Christ because that is what the Scripture speaks of.

And yes I do hold the words of Scripture to be my guide for revelation.

Guess I just don't see the plan of salvation as complicated as others might.

[mantaspats]

God is a very broad definition for LDS members. That's why we have God the Father, but we dont really say God The Jesus , Or God the Holly ghost. We are all gods << Psalm 82:6 >>, thus to be a god and to be exalted looks to be different. And to be honest we dont have a definition of exaltation ether, as we know that after the Judgement we will live in celestial kingdom and will still have things to learn...

Answer to question was Jesus married, We dont know, does He have to be married after the Millennium. YES

[mordorbund]

does He have to be married after the Millennium. YES

This is news to me. Are you stating this as your opinion, or is this an LDS doctrine that I slept through in Sunday School?

[Vort]

Thank you for keeping the topic spiritual. Sex wasen't on my mind.

I just asked about the bride of Christ because that is what the Scripture speaks of.

And yes I do hold the words of Scripture to be my guide for revelation.

Guess I just don't see the plan of salvation as complicated as others might.

Actually, your words were:

What happened to the wedding supper, I thought the church was the bride of Christ.

Must be missing something here.

This was your argument against the idea of a married Jesus. So you were saying that Jesus could not literally be married, because he was already literally married to the Church -- which, to my mind, is an extremely strange belief. As I attempted to point out, if Christ's "marriage" to the Church is to be taken literally, how are we to understand the various marital aspects of this literal relationship?

It seems quite obvious to me that Christ's relationship with his Church was compared to a marriage to allow understanding of how a loving Jesus cares for us, and not as some sort of weird, literal relationship that would therefore somehow preclude Jesus actually being married to a real, live female human being.

[mantaspats]

hi im typing this on my phone so sorry for the grammar.

first of all christ being married to church is crazy idea, there is no refrence to it anywhere and there is no need for it eather. chruch is world bound institution in heaven there will be no church, thus all this idea is crazy

secondly

we know that god has female counterpart genesis 1. we lds know this female is gods wife.

bruce r maconkie talk mystery of godlines. explains that to have eternal life means living the kind of life that God lives and God lives in the family unit (you should read the whole talk). thus for us to gave eternql life means beeing married for eternity and the same for christ. thus christ will have to be married

[mordorbund]

hi im typing this on my phone so sorry for the grammar.

first of all christ being married to church is crazy idea, there is no refrence to it anywhere and there is no need for it eather. chruch is world bound institution in heaven there will be no church, thus all this idea is crazy

Some of the non-references that don't exist anywhere:

Christ is the bridegroom:

John 3:27-30 

He that hath the bride is the bridegroom

John speaks of himself as the friend of the bridegroom (letting us know he is talking symbolically). So who is the bride?

Revelation 19:5-9 

The marriage of the Lamb is come, and his wife hath made herself ready. And to her was granted that she should be arrayed in fine linen, clean and white: for the fine linen is the righteousness of saints.

Revelation 21:2 

And I John saw the holy city, new Jerusalem, coming down from God out of heaven, prepared as a bride adorned for her husband.

Sounds like the bride is the Church of Former-day Saints here.

Doctrine and Covenants 65:3,5 

The Son of Man shall come down in heaven, clothed in the brightness of his glory, to meet the kingdom of God which is set up on the earth.

Sounds like the Church of Latter-day Saints is playing the role of bride.

In heaven, there is a church:

Doctrine and Covenants 76:54 

They are they who are the church of the Firstborn.

Doctrine and Covenants 76:67 

These are they who have come to an innumerable company of angels, to the general assembly and church of Enoch, and of the Firstborn.

Doctrine and Covenants 76:71 

And again, we saw the terrestrial world, and behold and lo, these are they who are of the terrestrial, whose glory differs from that of the church of the Firstborn who have received the fulness of the Father, even as that of the moon differs from the sun in the firmament.

Doctrine and Covenants 76:94 

They who dwell in his presence are the church of the Firstborn; and they see as they are seen, and know as they are known, having received of his fulness and of his grace;

Doctrine and Covenants 76:102 

Last of all, these all are they who will not be gathered with the saints, to be caught up unto the church of the Firstborn, and received into the cloud.

[mantaspats]

Looking at the definition in heaven are non relevant, as its not a church Church | Define Church at Dictionary.com, but more a group of exhaled people who follow GOD The Father.

John 3:27-30* Doesn't talk about literal marriage even if it does, church as a bride is not mentioned

Revelation 19:5-9 Does not say He is marrying the church, who is the BRIDE is ME Isa. 54:5, again its symbolic of being together, or it could be his real wife (just for argument sake)

Revelation 21:2* Thats the City is the bride and not the Church, So is christ married to the Church and Zion thats just crazy.

Sounds like the bride is the Church of Former-day Saints here.

Doctrine and Covenants 65:3,5* are you smoking crack?

And Jesus said unto them, Can the children of the bridechamber fast, while the bridegroom is with them? as long as they have the bridegroom with them, they cannot fast.

20 But the days will come, when the bridegroom shall be taken away from them, and then shall they fast in those days. Mark 2:19 (19–20)

So we now know that Bridegroom is Christ and we people his followers AKA Mormons AKA LDS are his Bride as a people and not as a church Church | Define Church at Dictionary.com

[mordorbund]

Looking at the definition in heaven are non relevant, as its not a church Church | Define Church at Dictionary.com, but more a group of exhaled people who follow GOD The Father.

It is completely relevant to counter your statement that the "church is a world bound institution - in heaven there will be no church". In the canonical description of heaven, the inhabitants belong to two different churches. In your dictionary, the 5th definition of a church is "that part of the whole Christian body, or of a particular denomination, belonging to the same city, country, nation, etc." That part of the whole Christian body belonging to the same celestial kingdom is the Church of the Firstborn.

John 3:27-30* Doesn't talk about literal marriage even if it does, church as a bride is not mentioned

I didn't realize from your earlier post that you only thought a literal marriage was "a crazy idea". In fact, let me repost what you wrote. "first of all christ being married to church is crazy idea, there is no refrence to it anywhere and there is no need for it eather". If you only meant literally, then I wholeheartedly agree and you can treat this post and the one previous as a strawman to be ignored. I thought you meant that even a metaphorical understanding of the Church as the bride of Christ was not referenced anywhere, and that is what I addressed (and will again address in this post).

Revelation 19:5-9 Does not say He is marrying the church, who is the BRIDE is ME Isa. 54:5, again its symbolic of being together, or it could be his real wife (just for argument sake)

Your profile says you're male, but you can accept being a bride? Either you and I have a very different understanding of role of marriage, or else you are able to understand metaphors (but refuse to accept the metaphor of the Church as a bride).

Revelation 21:2* Thats the City is the bride and not the Church, So is christ married to the Church and Zion thats just crazy.

Good, so we both agree the City of New Jerusalem is the bride. In my mind, that's synonymous with the City of Zion as a bride. Is that leap of logic what's so crazy? If I show that connection, will you cede that the idea of the Church as bride is not so crazy and unreferenced?

"Sounds like the bride is the Church of Former-day Saints here.

Doctrine and Covenants 65:3,5*" are you smoking crack?

My issues with the word of wisdom are a non-sequiter. Let's keep on point. My quip of the Church of the Former-day Saints was in reference to the City of New Jerusalem mentioned in Revelation. D&C 65 supports the idea that the modern Church should become the bride of Christ.

And Jesus said unto them, Can the children of the bridechamber fast, while the bridegroom is with them? as long as they have the bridegroom with them, they cannot fast.

20 But the days will come, when the bridegroom shall be taken away from them, and then shall they fast in those days. Mark 2:19 (19–20)

So we now know that Bridegroom is Christ and we people his followers AKA Mormons AKA LDS are his Bride as a people and not as a church Church | Define Church at Dictionary.com

I should have just started here. So Christ's bride is the LDS as a people but not a church? I don't think you understand the definition of church. You should review your link, with a special emphasis on definition 4:

"( sometimes initial capital letter ) any division of this body [of Christians] professing the same creed and acknowledging the same ecclesiastical authority; [as in] a Christian denomination: the Methodist Church."

[X33ad]

When Jesus came, he elevated matrimony to the same status it had originally possessed between Adam and Eve—the status of a sacrament. Thus, any valid marriage between two baptized people is a sacramental marriage and, once consummated, cannot be dissolved. Jesus, therefore, taught that if anyone so married divorces and remarries, that person is living in perpetual adultery, a state of mortal sin.*

He said, "Every one who divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery, and he who marries a woman divorced from her husband commits adultery" (Luke 16:18; cf. Mark 10:11–12).*

Paul was equally insistent on this fact, declaring, "Thus a married woman is bound by law to her husband as long as he lives. . . . Accordingly, she will be called an adulteress if she lives with another man while her husband is alive" (Rom. 7:2–3).*

This applied, of course, only to sacramental marriages—those between baptized people. For marriages involving an unbaptized party, a different rule applied (1 Cor. 7:12–15).*

In the midst of the Greco-Roman culture, which allowed for easy divorce and remarriage, the early Church Fathers proclaimed Christ’s teaching on the indissolubility of marriage—just as the Catholic Church does today in our modern, secular, easy-divorce culture (cf.*Catechism of the Catholic Church*1614–1615). Other denominations have modified their teachings to accommodate the pro-divorce ethos that dominates modern culture, but the Catholic Church preserves the teaching of Jesus and the early Christians.*

While their ex-spouses are alive, the only time that a baptized couple can remarry after divorce is when a valid sacramental marriage never existed in the first place. For example, for a marriage to be contracted, the two parties must exchange valid matrimonial consent. If they do not, the marriage is null. If the competent authority (a diocesan marriage tribunal) establishes this fact, a decree of nullity (commonly called an annulment) can be granted, and the parties are free to remarry (CCC 1629). In this case there is no divorce followed by remarriage in God’s eyes because there*was no marriage*before God in the first place, merely a marriage in the eyes of men.*

[X33ad]

The Permanence of Matrimony

Share on twitter Share on email Share on print Share on gmail Share on stumbleupon More Sharing Services

When Jesus came, he elevated matrimony to the same status it had originally possessed between Adam and Eve—the status of a sacrament. Thus, any valid marriage between two baptized people is a sacramental marriage and, once consummated, cannot be dissolved. Jesus, therefore, taught that if anyone so married divorces and remarries, that person is living in perpetual adultery, a state of mortal sin.*

He said, "Every one who divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery, and he who marries a woman divorced from her husband commits adultery" (Luke 16:18; cf. Mark 10:11–12).*

Paul was equally insistent on this fact, declaring, "Thus a married woman is bound by law to her husband as long as he lives. . . . Accordingly, she will be called an adulteress if she lives with another man while her husband is alive" (Rom. 7:2–3).*

This applied, of course, only to sacramental marriages—those between baptized people. For marriages involving an unbaptized party, a different rule applied (1 Cor. 7:12–15).*

In the midst of the Greco-Roman culture, which allowed for easy divorce and remarriage, the early Church Fathers proclaimed Christ’s teaching on the indissolubility of marriage—just as the Catholic Church does today in our modern, secular, easy-divorce culture (cf.*Catechism of the Catholic Church*1614–1615). Other denominations have modified their teachings to accommodate the pro-divorce ethos that dominates modern culture, but the Catholic Church preserves the teaching of Jesus and the early Christians.*