Mary Magdalene and Christ

[Vort]

No one has to prove He wasn't married, because we're not making the claim He was. If you make a claim you have to back it  up with something. 

 

Did Jesus have hair on his head? Well, the scriptures are silent on the matter, so therefore it's pretty apparent that Jesus was completely bald. He did not even have any body hair. Smooth as a baby's bottom, all over.

 

I understand that not everyone believes that. But no one has to prove he wasn't hairy, because we're not making the claim that he was. If you make a claim you have to back it up with something.

 

Ergo, Jesus had no hair on his entire body.

[Guest MormonGator]

You are comparing Christ being married to his physical appearance? One is relevant, one isn't. Being married is a huge event that would certainly have been mentioned in scripture. His appearance is not. 

[Vort]

You are comparing Christ being married to his physical appearance? One is relevant, one isn't. Being married is a huge event that would certainly have been mentioned in scripture. His appearance is not. 

 

What makes you think so?

 

Was Peter married? Yes, we know he was. How? Only because his mother-in-law happened to be mentioned at some point. Other than that, there is no evidence that Peter was married.

 

Was John married? How about James? Philip? Bartholomew? The Bible is silent, yet we may assume that most or all of them were married, even though the Bible does not specify that they were.

 

I see absolutely no reason to believe that Jesus was unmarried just because the scriptures don't mention that he was, any more than I assume that the apostles were mostly unmarried because their wives are never mentioned.

[Vort]

By the way, I'm not married (heh, heh) to this argument. My point is not to be contentious, just to point out that Jesus' marital status (1) is not specified by the Bible, and (2) cannot legitimately be inferred by the Bible's silence on the matter.

[Guest MormonGator]

What makes you think so?

 

Was Peter married? Yes, we know he was. How? Only because his mother-in-law happened to be mentioned at some point. Other than that, there is no evidence that Peter was married.

 

Was John married? How about James? Philip? Bartholomew? The Bible is silent, yet we may assume that most or all of them were married, even though the Bible does not specify that they were.

 

I see absolutely no reason to believe that Jesus was unmarried just because the scriptures don't mention that he was, any more than I assume that the apostles were mostly unmarried because their wives are never mentioned.

Great. At least we see where we disagree. 

[Average Joe]

You are comparing Christ being married to his physical appearance? One is relevant, one isn't. Being married is a huge event that would certainly have been mentioned in scripture. His appearance is not. 

 

OK, they kill the savior because he was a threat to the status quo, so as a follower of his you're going to write about his family in any but the most oblique ways? 

 

Where do we find out the Apostle Philip had been married and for a time his residence with his daughters was in Hierapolis, since only the apostle Peter is mentioned as having a mother-in-law (in the Gospel of Matthew)? Do you think they wanted their own families hunted down and killed too as they were?

Edited May 18, 2015 by Average Joe

[The Folk Prophet]

The Orson Pratt quote I shared:

 

“…Jesus was the bridegroom at the marriage of Cana of Galilee, and he told them what to do. Now there was actually a marriage, and if Jesus was not the bridegroom on that occasion, please tell who was. If any man can show this, and prove that it was not the Savior of the world, then I will acknowledge I am in error. We say it was Jesus Christ who was married, to be brought into the relation whereby he could see his seed, before he was crucified.” (Journal of Discourses, Vol. 2, p. 82, 83).

 

referenced Isaiah 53:10

 

Yet it pleased the LORD to bruise him; he hath put him to grief: when thou shalt make his soul an offering for sin, he shall see his seed, he shall prolong his days, and the pleasure of the LORD shall prosper in his hand.

 

Not saying it's out of the realm of possible...but it's also the case that Orson Pratt made practically as many crackpot statements as did Brigham Young :) and one needs take quotes from him with, perhaps, and even bigger grain of salt than BY, as per their relative status in the hiearchy.

 

Clearly, and OBVIOUSLY, the Isaiah quote is speaking of Jesus' heirs, as in His followers, as in the explanation that is plainly given in the Book of Mormon in Mosiah 15:

 

10 And now I say unto you, who shall declare his generation? Behold, I say unto you, that when his soul has been made an offering for sin he shall see his seed. And now what say ye? And who shall be his seed?

 

11 Behold I say unto you, that whosoever has heard the words of the prophets, yea, all the holy prophets who have prophesied concerning the coming of the Lord—I say unto you, that all those who have hearkened unto their words, and believed that the Lord would redeem his people, and have looked forward to that day for a remission of their sins, I say unto you, that these are his seed, or they are the heirs of the kingdom of God.

 

12 For these are they whose sins he has borne; these are they for whom he has died, to redeem them from their transgressions. And now, are they not his seed?

Edited May 19, 2015 by The Folk Prophet

[Average Joe]

Not saying it's out of the realm of possible...but it's also the case that Orson Pratt made practically as many crackpot statements as did Brigham Young :) and one needs take quotes from him with, perhaps, and even bigger grain of salt than BY, as per their relative status in the hiearchy.

 

Clearly, and OBVIOUSLY, the Isaiah quote is speaking of Jesus' heirs, as in His followers, as in the explanation that is plainly given in the Book of Mormon in Mosiah 15:

 

10 And now I say unto you, who shall declare his generation? Behold, I say unto you, that when his soul has been made an offering for sin he shall see his seed. And now what say ye? And who shall be his seed?

 

11 Behold I say unto you, that whosoever has heard the words of the prophets, yea, all the holy prophets who have prophesied concerning the coming of the Lord—I say unto you, that all those who have hearkened unto their words, and believed that the Lord would redeem his people, and have looked forward to that day for a remission of their sins, I say unto you, that these are his seed, or they are the heirs of the kingdom of God.

 

12 For these are they whose sins he has borne; these are they for whom he has died, to redeem them from their transgressions. And now, are they not his seed?

 

I believe Pratt, Young and other early church leaders also had access to the BoM when they were teaching that Jesus was married.

 

As I posted earlier :

 

The marriage of the Savior was taught more often in early church history, by leaders like President Brigham Young, George Q. Cannon, President Wilford Woodruff, Orson Pratt, Jedediah M. Grant, President Joseph F. Smith, and President Heber C. Kimball, to name just a few. 

 

Young, Woodruff and Jos. F. Smith were all prophets of the church (Smith's tenure ended with his death in 1918). I find it a little disappointing when things outside people's comfort zone is dismissed as "crack pot" and multiple early prophets and general authorities are thrown under the bus. Sadly, when it's something we agree with their word is considered the rock of Gibraltar. 

 

To suggest that scripture has only one meaning and not levels and layers is also disheartening. 

 

If the early leaders of the church weren't true what leg are we standing on now?

[Just_A_Guy]

TFP, I shy away from using the word "crackpot" in the same sentence with either Pres. Young or Elder Pratt; but I agree with the fundamental point of your post.  :)

[The Folk Prophet]

TFP, I shy away from using the word "crackpot" in the same sentence with either Pres. Young or Elder Pratt; but I agree with the fundamental point of your post.  :)

 

Haha. Yeah...well...thank you for the appropriate reprimand on the matter. I certainly don't consider either of them crackpot, and actually believe that most of what we consider "crackpot" from President Young is likely misunderstood, misquoted, misetc... Orson did have some "out there" theories. But due respect owed. So I apologize.

[Just_A_Guy]

To suggest that scripture has only one meaning and not levels and layers is also disheartening.

 

Oh, we always want to be open-minded; but to suggest that there's no such thing as a wrong scriptural interpretation is positively dangerous.

 

I mean, I can use this sort of logic to state that Gen 2:24 prohibits men from contacting their parents after their own marriage.  You can tell me I'm wrong until you're blue in the face--but I can just smugly sit back and say "well, you obviously just haven't reached the spiritual state where you are capable of perceiving this layer of interpretation", and that pretty much ends the discussion.  It's a formula for completely wresting the scriptures out of context.

 

Coming back to Isaiah 53:  The prophet says the suffering man (Christ) sees His seed when I make my soul an offering to him.  Okay, then--applying your interpretation that this passage points to Jesus' status as a married man, what could I possibly do in AD 2015 that could influence whether Yeshua-bin-Yusuf got married and biologically procreated in approximately AD 20?

Edited May 19, 2015 by Just_A_Guy

[The Folk Prophet]

I believe Pratt, Young and other early church leaders also had access to the BoM when they were teaching that Jesus was married.

 

As I posted earlier :

 

The marriage of the Savior was taught more often in early church history, by leaders like President Brigham Young, George Q. Cannon, President Wilford Woodruff, Orson Pratt, Jedediah M. Grant, President Joseph F. Smith, and President Heber C. Kimball, to name just a few. 

 

Young, Woodruff and Jos. F. Smith were all prophets of the church (Smith's tenure ended with his death in 1918). I find it a little disappointing when things outside people's comfort zone is dismissed as "crack pot" and multiple early prophets and general authorities are thrown under the bus. Sadly, when it's something we agree with their word is considered the rock of Gibraltar. 

 

To suggest that scripture has only one meaning and not levels and layers is also disheartening. 

 

If the early leaders of the church weren't true what leg are we standing on now?

 

I believe my post began with the words, "Not saying it's out of the realm of possible...", which means your translation of my post to be throwing them under the bus is, for the most part unfair.

 

So let me state it a bit less flippantly so you don't react, hopefully, as defensively.

 

Orson Pratt's interpretation of the matter may have been valid, but it is also quite likely that he was off course on this one, and I don't think it is valid to take the quote from him as the matter settled.

[The Folk Prophet]

I believe Pratt, Young and other early church leaders also had access to the BoM when they were teaching that Jesus was married.

...

 

To suggest that scripture has only one meaning and not levels and layers is also disheartening. 

 

If the early leaders of the church weren't true what leg are we standing on now?

 

This part of your response, incidentally, is also sort of missing the point of mine, and reading a lot into what I'm saying, so let me clarify this further as well.

 

Mine was a basic logic response. The Book of Mormon explains what Isaiah meant when he spoke of Christ's seed. That does not mean there might not be other meaning to it, but what it DOES mean is that the Isaiah verse is not a proof text for Christ having been married and having had children.

[Average Joe]

TFP, I shy away from using the word "crackpot" in the same sentence with either Pres. Young or Elder Pratt; but I agree with the fundamental point of your post.  :)

 

We can agree to disagree on this. It is not official church doctrine even though it was taught. Things like this remind me so much of a quote by Joseph Smith: 

 

“I have tried for a number of years to get the minds of the Saints prepared to receive the things of God; but we frequently see some of them, after suffering all they have for the work of God, will fly to pieces like glass as soon as anything comes that is contrary to their traditions: they cannot stand the fire at all. How many will be able to abide a celestial law, and go through and receive their exaltation, I am unable to say, as many are called, but few are chosen"  (History of the Church, 6:184–85; from a discourse given by Joseph Smith on Jan. 21, 1844, in Nauvoo, Illinois; reported by Wilford Woodruff.)

[Still_Small_Voice]

I find it very difficult to believe that Christ was unmarried His entire life.  In Matthew chapter 3 we read:

 

13 Then cometh Jesus from Galilee to Jordan unto John, to be baptized of him.
14 But John forbad him, saying, I have need to be baptized of thee, and comest thou to me?
15 And Jesus answering said unto him, Suffer it to be so now: for thus it becometh us to fulfil all righteousness. Then he suffered him.

 

Christ was baptized because it was necessary to enter the third heaven.  We know from modern day revelation that a man and wife must be sealed together in marriage through the holy priesthood to enter the highest degree of the celestial kingdom.  (Read Doc. & Cov. section 131 verses 1-4).  Christ obeyed the commandment of baptism but not the commandment to be sealed in marriage to a wife? 

 

We do not know who He was married to or if He had children.  But certainly He was married.

[Average Joe]

Oh, we always want to be open-minded; but to suggest that there's no such thing as a wrong scriptural interpretation is positively dangerous.

 

Perhaps as dangerous as saying multiple founding general authorities who were all aquainted with Joseph Smith (including 3 who became prophets) didn't know what they were talking about.

[The Folk Prophet]

Average Joe, you are using these concepts unfairly. We have been given clear direction in our times as to what sorts of teachings are to be accepted as doctrinal and which are not. And any quote given in the past that is not preached as doctrine in our current time we are not beholden to in any degree.

 

You will not find me disagree with things that past prophets and apostles have said that are currently taught and believed in the church (even if they are not "canonized" ideas, like God once being a man or the like) but there are, without question, a myriad of ideas that were taught in the early church that are non-doctrinal, and not taught in any degree by the brethren in our days. Jesus being married squarely falls into the latter. I do not reject the idea. It has not been refuted as false by modern leaders. But it is not doctrinal by any stretch of the word.

[Average Joe]

I believe my post began with the words, "Not saying it's out of the realm of possible...", which means your translation of my post to be throwing them under the bus is, for the most part unfair.

 

So let me state it a bit less flippantly so you don't react, hopefully, as defensively.

 

Orson Pratt's interpretation of the matter may have been valid, but it is also quite likely that he was off course on this one, and I don't think it is valid to take the quote from him as the matter settled.

 

A redneck went to a fancy restaurant to see what all of the fuss was about. The waiter suggested he try escargot. When the dish was brought out the redneck said, "Why didn't you say snails to start with?"  

 

Pratt wasn't alone. Again:

 

The marriage of the Savior was taught more often in early church history, by leaders like President Brigham Young, George Q. Cannon, President Wilford Woodruff, Orson Pratt, Jedediah M. Grant, President Joseph F. Smith, and Heber C. Kimball, to name just a few. 

 

We'll just have to agree to disagree on this one. :)

[Average Joe]

Average Joe, you are using these concepts unfairly. We have been given clear direction in our times as to what sorts of teachings are to be accepted as doctrinal and which are not. And any quote given in the past that is not preached as doctrine in our current time we are not beholden to in any degree.

 

You will not find me disagree with things that past prophets and apostles have said that are currently taught and believed in the church (even if they are not "canonized" ideas, like God once being a man or the like) but there are, without question, a myriad of ideas that were taught in the early church that are non-doctrinal, and not taught in any degree by the brethren in our days. Jesus being married squarely falls into the latter. I do not reject the idea. It has not been refuted as false by modern leaders. But it is not doctrinal by any stretch of the word.

 

In several replies on this thread I have said it is not considered church doctrine although perhaps not in a response to you. I'm not upset with you or anyone else who has disagreed with me here on any post. However, I can honestly say it troubles me that the early general authorities are so often dismissed out of hand. 

[The Folk Prophet]

However, I can honestly say it troubles me that the early general authorities are so often dismissed out of hand. 

 

In this you are not alone. But not in things that are non-doctrinal. The very nature of continuing revelation allows for such. We accept, as a general rule, that if the leaders in later generations discontinue a teaching of some sort or another that there is cause for it. As I am sure you accept, this church is led by God, and what is taught is what God wills to be taught. Reasonably speaking, if something is no longer taught it is either unimportant or invalid. And there is no particular reason to argue that said teaching is important or valid against this. That, I believe, is the only "contention" we have on the matter -- that somehow disregarding this idea is mistaken because it's important, and that the disregarding of it is somehow betraying our early leaders (like how I feel about those who now try and claim that the priesthood ban was not inspired and all about prejudice). There are many, many things, I reiterate, that the early leaders taught that are not valid doctrinally, have either been disregarded, refuted, or simply updated, and there is no implication that our early leaders' mistakes render the rest of what they said or who they were less valid.

 

I do not believe in, nor am I engaging in, disregarding a theory because it doesn't suit my personal tastes. I am not justifying anything or otherwise carrying some agenda concerning our past leaders' reliability. You are, perhaps, responding defensively because of others who have done these things -- and that is surely understandable. If you knew me better you would understand that there is, hardly, a more fierce defender in these forums of our prophets and apostles and the doctrines, teachings, and principles of this church.

 

But to come in with any given non-doctrinal, non-taught, non-commonly-understood quote from early leaders and to proclaim such as a concrete is just as potentially harmful as throwing their quotes away because we simply disagree with them for personal, emotional reasons. Others have used early quotes from church leaders the same way you have, with the same arguments you give, to actually go so far as to promote false ideologies and principles. And it is, simply, not as black and white as you make it out to be in your honorable vigor to defend our early leaders, and to paint it as if it is black and white is not sustainable as a theory.

 

As to this specific theory, perhaps you have read into my points of debate that I do not believe our early leaders' comments on the matter. This is incorrect. I am, I would say, more neutral on the matter. And, frankly, I feel that anyone who takes an opinion that is beyond some level of neutrality in it is, to an extent, looking beyond the mark.

Edited May 19, 2015 by The Folk Prophet

[Just_A_Guy]

Perhaps as dangerous as saying multiple founding general authorities who were all aquainted with Joseph Smith (including 3 who became prophets) didn't know what they were talking about.

Holy cow. Straw man, much?

[Average Joe]

But to come in with any given non-doctrinal, non-taught, non-commonly-understood quote from early leaders and to proclaim such as a concrete is just as potentially harmful as throwing their quotes away because we simply disagree with them for personal, emotional reasons. Others have used early quotes from church leaders the same way you have, with the same arguments you give, to actually go so far as to promote false ideologies and principles. And it is, simply, not as black and white as you make it out to be in your honorable vigor to defend our early leaders, and to paint it as if it is black and white is not sustainable as a theory.

 

As to this specific theory, perhaps you have read into my points of debate that I do not believe our early leaders' comments on the matter. This is incorrect. I am, I would say, more neutral on the matter. And, frankly, I feel that anyone who takes an opinion that is beyond some level of neutrality in it is, to an extent, looking beyond the mark.

 

LDS Seventy Milton R. Hunter wrote The Gospel Through the Ages in 1945. The preface states,

 

This book is designed primarily for a course of study in the Melchizedek Priesthood quorums of the Church. It is to be used by all high priests’, seventies’, and elders’ classes in their weekly meetings, beginning January 1, 1946….The volume has been written and published under the direction of the General Authorities.

 

As an authoritative course of study published under the direction of the General Authorities of the Church it seems that there should be no disputing that what it teaches is “official” and “sanctioned” by the Church. The book says,

 

Operating in addition to and as part of natural laws are the Gospel ordinances. They were instituted by God the Eternal Father and His Son Jesus Christ before man was placed on this earth, for the purpose of assisting in bringing the sons and daughters of God back into Their presence. Such ordinances as baptism, confirmation, temple ordinances, priesthood ordinations, marriage, and others, are all part of the Gospel plan of salvation. All of these principles and ordinances of the Gospel are eternal. They were instituted before man was placed on the earth and are applicable to all human beings that live here…

 

Jesus Christ, the only perfect man who has lived on this earth, was perfect because He obeyed all the principles and ordinances of the Gospel in order that He “might fulfill all righteousness.” He thereby set a pattern of life for all mortals to follow. If they obey all the principles and ordinances of the Gospel, as did the Master, their growth will continue until they attain eternal life in the Kingdom of God. (pages 18-19. Emphasis mine.)

Edited May 19, 2015 by Average Joe

[Average Joe]

Holy cow. Straw man, much?

 

 

I'll rephrase for you. Misquoting/misunderstanding scripture is as dangerous as disregarding the teachings of general authorities.

[Traveler]

It is my personal opinion that Jesus was married.  I am also somewhat of the mind that he had children.  99% of the reason I believe this to be the case is because of my own experience of being married and raising children.  I find being married and a parent the most divine and like G-d of all my experiences.   I find the logic odd that assumes G-d (Jesus) would avoid the very institution and relationships that defines G-d as our Father.

[Guest]

It is my personal opinion that Jesus was married. I am also somewhat of the mind that he had children. 99% of the reason I believe this to be the case is because of my own experience of being married and raising children. I find being married and a parent the most divine and like G-d of all my experiences. I find the logic odd that assumes G-d (Jesus) would avoid the very institution and relationships that defines G-d as our Father.

I understand this position.

I tend to believe differently - that it was not necessary for righteousness for Jesus to have married and born children in his mortal ministry on earth ... 100% simply for the reason that Jesus was already God.