Why is marriage so important if Jesus didn't get married

[zil]

I guess I don't care what Dan Brown's novel has to say about the matter - it's less than relevant.  I fully understand why Ed referenced the scripture as another which could indicate Christ was married, and I'm sure his reason has nothing to do with Dan Brown.

[anatess2]

1 minute ago, zil said:

I guess I don't care what Dan Brown's novel has to say about the matter - it's less than relevant.  I fully understand why Ed referenced the scripture as another which could indicate Christ was married, and I'm sure his reason has nothing to do with Dan Brown.

That's why I asked.  I wanted to know where he's coming from.

Normally, we (and that includes all Christendom) read that part of scripture as the importance of Repentance and Praise in the same manner that Mary, sister of Lazarus, was honored for praising Christ while Martha cooked... not as a sign of these women being married to Christ.  The marriage implication is a work by Dan Brown.

[anatess2]

38 minutes ago, zil said:

BTW, there is some speculation that there were two women referred to as Mary Magdalene, but it's been so long since I heard it that I can't imagine where to go looking.

What I've heard - and is taught by the Roman Catholic Church - is that Mary Magdalene is the repentant sinner with the oil and the sister of Lazarus and the woman who traveled with the apostles and the woman who was the first to see the resurrected Jesus... all in one.

Edited June 10, 2016 by anatess2

[Guest MormonGator]

9 minutes ago, The Folk Prophet said:

If you believe this you haven't lived long enough.

 

I'm in Generation X. I think I'm older than you are. 

[The Folk Prophet]

3 minutes ago, MormonGator said:

I'm in Generation X. I think I'm older than you are. 

A) Doubt it. B) What does that have to do with what I'm saying? I'm not talking about your age. I mean that if you believe that someone can go around and never offend anyone no matter what logic they propose as long as they say it a certain way then your experience is limited...and I'd say the same if you were 5 or 500.

Edited June 10, 2016 by The Folk Prophet

[Guest MormonGator]

1 minute ago, The Folk Prophet said:

A) Doubt it. B) What does that have to do with what I'm saying. I'm not talking about your age. I mean that if you believe that someone can go around and never offend anyone no matter what logic they propose as long as they say it a certain way then your experience is limited...and I'd say the same if you were 5 or 500.

A) You are doubting that I know which generation I'm in? That's awesome. 

B) Of course. 

 

[The Folk Prophet]

1 minute ago, MormonGator said:

A) You are doubting that I know which generation I'm in? That's awesome. 

Good grief. No. I doubt you're older than I am. Could be. Probably close. But I doubt you're older. If so...a few years mayhaps.

Gen X rules! 

[The Folk Prophet]

1 minute ago, MormonGator said:

A) You are doubting that I know which generation I'm in? That's awesome. 

Good grief. No. I doubt you're older than I am. Could be. Probably close. But I doubt you're older. If so...a few years mayhaps.

Gen X rules! 

[Awakened]

1 hour ago, The Folk Prophet said:

This is the problem with this new liberal touchy-feeling culture we live it. A logical point becomes an "attack".

*sighs* Attack may not have been a good word but there seems to be a lot of passive aggressiveness such as, 'Why don't you get your facts straight.' and other unnecessary stuff like that. And in any case, I was mainly saying it's really hard for me to support a debate from 3 different sides and two different points, especially with one topic as speculative as Christ's marriage.

Edited June 10, 2016 by Awakened

[zil]

59 minutes ago, anatess2 said:

What I've heard - and is taught by the Roman Catholic Church - is that Mary Magdalene is the repentant sinner with the oil and the sister of Lazarus and the woman who traveled with the apostles and the woman who was the first to see the resurrected Jesus... all in one.

The Roman Catholics are welcome to believe that.  I don't.

[The Folk Prophet]

27 minutes ago, Awakened said:

*sighs* Attack may not have been a good word but there seems to be a lot of passive aggressiveness such as, 'Why don't you get your facts straight.' and other unnecessary stuff like that.

Shrug.

As I see it, if someone's going to say something factually wrong, particularly an easily researchable thing such as the concept of what is and is not a "saving" ordinance, and then without having done said simple research makes a concrete statement such as nothing beyond baptism and the gift of the Holy Ghost are saving ordinances, then it should not be surprising that someone replies with a "get your facts straight" kind of response. Because...seriously...there's just no excuse in such a day and age of internet information as we live in. I mean, even if one doesn't go to LDS.org, just google it. "LDS saving ordinances". Boom.

Moreover, I am not passive aggressive. I am aggressive, as any who know me can well attest to.

[Budget]

1 hour ago, anatess2 said:

 

What I've heard - and is taught by the Roman Catholic Church - is that Mary Magdalene is the repentant sinner with the oil and the sister of Lazarus and the woman who traveled with the apostles and the woman who was the first to see the resurrected Jesus... all in one.

 

2 hours ago, zil said:

The woman who anointed Jesus with expensive ointment is not named.  We have no idea who she was.  There may be speculation or writings outside of scripture, but at least LDS scripture gives no indication who she was.  So no, I don't think EdSpringer is trying to say Christ was married to Mary Magdalene; he may be implying Christ was married to the woman in the story.

BTW, there is some speculation that there were two women referred to as Mary Magdalene, but it's been so long since I heard it that I can't imagine where to go looking.

 

First, we need to examine the specific references to the woman named "Mary Magdalene" recorded in the Gospels. She was one of the women who accompanied Jesus and the Apostles: "The Twelve accompanied Him, and also some women who had been cured of evil spirits and maladies: Mary called the Magdalene, from whom seven devils had gone out, Joanna, the wife of Herods steward Chuza, Susanna, and many others who were assisting them out of their means" (Lk 8:1-3). (The Gospel of St. Mark confirms that our Lord had expelled seven demons from Mary Magdalene (16:9).)

Mary Magdalene also stood at the foot of the cross during the crucifixion (confer Mk 15:40, Mt 27:56 and Jn 19:25). She also witnessed Christs burial, and on Easter was the first to discover the empty tomb and then the first to see the risen Lord (confer Jn 20:1-18).

Given the specific references to "Mary Magdalene," the second step is to examine whether Mary Magdalene may also be the penitent woman found in the Gospel of St. Luke (7:36-50). Remember the penitent woman entered the home of Simon the Pharisee. She wept, and her tears fell upon our Lords feet. She anointed His feet with perfumed oil and dried them with her hair. Simon the Pharisee said to himself, "If this man were a prophet, He would know who and what sort of woman this is that touches Him that she is a sinner," an obvious reference to her being "untouchable" because of such a serious sin as adultery, fornication, or promiscuity. In the end, Jesus forgives the penitent woman.

Lastly, the book cites several individuals who have accused the Church of "a smear campaign" to discredit Mary Magdalene so as to disempower a powerful woman. Oh please! What greater honor could the Church grant than by recognizing Mary Magdalene as a saint and a model for every sincere Christian who struggles for holiness?

This scene is part of Jesus ministry in the area of the Sea of Galilee. Also, right after the declaration of forgiveness in the seventh chapter of the Gospel of St. Luke, Mary Magdalene is mentioned by name as a follower of Jesus and identified as the one "from whom seven devils had gone out" (Lk 9:1-3). Keep in mind that Magdalene is derived from Magdala. Magdala, located along the Sea of Galilee near Tiberias, was a wealthy city known for its prosperous fisheries. The Romans destroyed the town because of its moral depravity and its participation in the Jewish revolt. Interestingly, in the Talmud, from the word Magdalene is derived the expression "curling womens hair," which means "adulteress." Even though the penitent woman of Luke 7 is not specifically identified as the Mary Magdalene "from whom seven devils had gone out" of Luke 8, one could easily draw the conclusion, as did Pope St. Gregory. Moreover, the early Church tradition has also upheld this connection.

The third and more difficult step to the investigation is to see if Mary Magdalene could indeed be Mary of Bethany. Following Luke 8, the gospel in the ninth and 10th chapters relates such stories as the miracle of the multiplication of the loaves, the Transfiguration, the exorcism of a possessed boy and teachings about discipleship. Our Lord then traveled to "a village" (i.e. Bethany, although not specified by Luke) to the home of Martha, who "had a sister named Mary" (confer Lk 10:38-42). There Martha prepared a meal for our Lord.

While the Gospel of St. Luke does not specifically identify Mary Magdalene with Mary of Bethany, the Gospel of St. John helps resolve the issue. In John 12:1-11, Jesus arrived at Bethany, "the village of Lazarus whom Jesus had raised from the dead." Martha served a meal. Mary anointed our Lords feet with perfume and dried his feet with her hair. Keep in mind this is a different scene than the anointing by the penitent woman in the home of Simon the Pharisee in Luke 7; nevertheless, the same kind of action in both scenes helps suggests the same actor, namely Mary Magdalene.

Moreover, in John 11, the earlier scene where Jesus raised Lazarus from the dead, the Gospel reads, "There was a certain man named Lazarus who was sick. He was from Bethany, the village of Mary and her sister Martha. This Mary whose brother Lazarus was sick was the one who anointed the Lord with perfume and dried His feet with her hair" (Jn 11:1-2). Here Mary is identified as "the one who anointed the Lord." While some speculate that this identification in John 11 refers to the subsequent anointing in John 12, why would John need to make such a reference when the story of John 11 flows right into the story of John 12? More likely, the identification refers to a previous action, namely the story at the home of Simon the Pharisee.

If this argument holds, then Mary Magdalene, the penitent woman, and Mary of Bethany are the same.

http://www.catholiceducation.org/en/culture/catholic-contributions/mary-magdalene.html

 

[Guest MormonGator]

Even though Anatess and I grew up Catholic neither one of us are experts on what the Catholic church teaches, even if we both think we are. We wouldn't want someone on a Catholic website talking about what Mormonism teaches simply because they wouldn't know. Same with us here, frankly.  

[SpiritDragon]

I just wanted to comment on some points regarding the idea of Christ being married pre-mortally - Does anyone besides Anatess share this notion?

I find the whole idea of pre-mortal marriage to be extremely unlikely and it seems to me like it's not thought out well, but I wish to give the benefit of the doubt and if nothing else help think it out further.

First of all the very term pre-mortal suggests just that PRE mortal - so the idea that Christ has already had a body of flesh and been perfected seems a contradiction. Also when the brother of Jared saw the premortal Lord it was explained to him how his body was a spirit but that ours were patterned after His. If he was already resurrected would he not have a body of flesh and bones and not of spirit?

The idea that to be God requires him to be married premortally in my mind is missing an eternal perspective. Did he have to be created already married to be God?  If He can be considered God from all eternity to all eternity, but get married at some later point - whether premortal, mortal or post-mortal - why would it matter when unless he was created married? 

If Christ had already been through the full process of testing would there have been any need to exercise faith in Christ in the war in heaven? I believe we still had to put faith in him that he would actually come through - we didn't know it was an already done deal. As for Lucifer's part how could he draw away a third part of the hosts of heaven if everyone knew that Christ had already succeeded, not that we would be counting on Him to?

If Christ was already fully guaranteed success what did he risk, what did he sacrifice in coming down to Atone for our sins? Why did Satan bother tempting him if there was no possibility of successfully foiling the plan?

I appreciate the Traveler's wondering if we even know what God is after discussions of this nature, because it seems that the fundamental issue here is what is pre-requisite to being considered God. I believe as the first born that Jesus has a direct birthright to Godhood, but He could most certainly have lost it. Agency applying to Him as well.

Any way perhaps all these points have been considered and answered to other's satisfaction. They prevent me from thinking this particular suggestion (premortal marriage/sealing) is possible.

[Traveler]

If Jesus was married before he came to earth - why, if we follow Jesus, didn't we also follow his example and do it the same correct way - before coming to earth.  This seems like a problem.  If it could be done before coming to earth where we have a better handle on spiritual things it should have been done then.  If we are following Jesus we should follow his example and marry as he did.  I believe we do follow exactly the same path and way by obedience to the commandment to multiply and replenish the earth 

 

The Traveler 

[The Folk Prophet]

I doubt the idea of Jesus having a mortal posterity. There's WAY too many problems with that idea.

[SpiritDragon]

4 minutes ago, zomarah said:

What if there was some form of premortal marriage? We know there was a "birth" as spirit children, (whatever form that took), a preordination, etc.

This is an interesting notion. The main concern that it raises for me is that it leads to the idea of finding "the one" that an individual is supposed to marry. Prophets and apostles have been clear on this being a false precept and encouraged the idea that any two worthy individuals of the opposing sex who are willing to work at it can make a marriage last for the eternities and that we should not be caught up looking for a soul mate.

[TilKingdomCome]

Now I'm even more confused than when I started this thread  

 

@SpiritDragon Couldn't help but notice your awesome avatar, and it reminded me: where do we get Choose the Right rings? The missionaries told me about that a few days ago - about how it's basically the Mormon emblem

[SpiritDragon]

35 minutes ago, TilKingdomCome said:

Now I'm even more confused than when I started this thread  

 

@SpiritDragon Couldn't help but notice your awesome avatar, and it reminded me: where do we get Choose the Right rings? The missionaries told me about that a few days ago - about how it's basically the Mormon emblem

As a kid I was able to get one for a quarter when I entered the CTR class in primary. As an adult I've seen nicer ones for sale at LDS book stores, but they cost a fair bit more than twenty five cents  I'm confident that if you don't have a store in your area that you could order one online. You might also look for ann LDS distribution center. 

[LeSellers]

4 hours ago, TilKingdomCome said:

@SpiritDragon where do we get Choose the Right rings? The missionaries told me about that a few days ago - about how it's basically the Mormon emblem

You  might try here:

http://www.seagullbook.com/seagull/NXSEARCH.html?Search=ctr+rings

Lehi

[Traveler]

21 hours ago, The Folk Prophet said:

I doubt the idea of Jesus having a mortal posterity. There's WAY too many problems with that idea.

Why?  How often is the promise of seed  (offspring) present in our covenants?  As well as the first commandment given to Adam. Note that Jesus recognize his devotion to Adamic covenant by proclaiming himself the son of man.

 

The Traveler 

[Traveler]

One of the assumptions made by scientists concerning the universe is that it is isotropic.  I like to think the idea of being one with G-d is also consistent with the commandments he gives us.  That the covenants and commandments are consistent with actually being like him.

 

The Traveler 

[The Folk Prophet]

16 hours ago, TilKingdomCome said:

Now I'm even more confused than when I started this thread  

It's only confusing if you buy into the crazy non-doctrinal theories.

[Traveler]

On ‎6‎/‎11‎/‎2016 at 6:34 AM, TilKingdomCome said:

Now I'm even more confused than when I started this thread  

 

I will try to help with some of the confusion and give an opinion why there are contradictions.

 

Points on which there is agreement (as it seems to me):

1. Marriage (between a man and a woman) is ordained, embraced and commanded by G-d

2. Marriage is necessary to become an exalted Celestial being (as per the example of G-d the Father)

3. Because marriage is divinely appointed all those that worship G-d will support and encourage marriage in society.  This means they will strive with all their heart, might, mind and strength to be worthy of marriage and to participate themselves in marriage – note that marriage requires two – a man and a woman.

4. Jesus Christ is the one example of G-d that is given to mortal man.

5. Jesus Christ is also the example of what manner of men mortals should be.  In fact even in scripture Jesus specifically said that the manner of men we should be is – “even as I am”.

Points where there appear to be confusion:

1. Was Jesus married in mortality?   The reason there is confusion is because of the doctrine of vicarious ordinances.  This doctrine allows that ordinances can be done by proxy.  This doctrine actually has two parts.  First proxy part is the proxy for G-d.  An ordained priesthood holder (ordained under the proper keys of the priesthood) can provide a proxy for G-d in performing ordinances.  Second proxy part is the proxy for individuals that have passed from mortality without opportunity to participate themselves in the ordinances.

2. Is the man Jesus Christ resurrected and an exalted Celestial being?  This is a point some posters may be confused and so voice a confusing opinion.  The point of doctrine is that if Jesus is currently a resurrected and exalted Celestial being he will have completed the covenant of marriage – I will summarize the possible theories:  (If I missed any – especially if it is a theory any purport – please add to the list.

1. Jesus was married in the pre-existence.  This theory is not a highly popular theory – but has viable arguments consistent with the idea that G-d is married – Jesus was G-d in the pre-existence – therefor Jesus being G-d before being born of Marry must have been married.

2. Jesus was married by proxy ordinance.  I am not sure this is strongly held or who exactly support this theory – but it does have some merit -  The problem I have with this theory is the precedence for this theory is that Jesus had not opportunity to marry. 

3. Jesus is married but did not do so in this life.  This has possibilities but contradicts the notion that Jesus lived by “perfect” obedience in this life.

4. Jesus was married in this life.  I will not pretend otherwise for myself – this option for me seem the most logical and probable.  I personally am willing to discuss in any detail (which means to put forward answers to any questions one may ask on the subject – even if I personally think the question does not really apply) why I believe this option to have the most merit in the discussion.  I am willing to help others seeking truth in any way I can – I am also open to any point of doctrine or what someone else thinks to be a point of doctrine I may have overlooked and the possibility I could have made a mistake.

5. Jesus is not married – Not sure if this option is supported by any LDS on this forum – it is my personal observation that those supporting this possibility do so contrary to LDS doctrine – which is the purpose of the op of this thread.

Hope this helps anyone seeking understanding – especially of my place in the discussions as they, I and others move forward.  If there is anything I have missed – Please, anyone so inspired feel free to add but please do not be offended if I or other ask questions to validate your additions – it is not you personally that is being questioned.  And if anyone thinks I am being somewhat arrogant; do not think I dislike you for so thinking.  My dear wife often thinks and voices that I am arrogant with my logic and I love her as much and more as anyone else I know.  BTW I make my living by my logic in the field of artificial intelligence and currently hold two copyright and a patent my field.  Thus I am somewhat arrogant – but to be honest I do wonder where some of the arrogance from other posters find traction???

 

The Traveler

[The Folk Prophet]

1 hour ago, Traveler said:

I will try to help with some of the confusion and give an opinion why there are contradictions.

 

Points on which there is agreement (as it seems to me):

1. Marriage (between a man and a woman) is ordained, embraced and commanded by G-d

2. Marriage is necessary to become an exalted Celestial being (as per the example of G-d the Father)

3. Because marriage is divinely appointed all those that worship G-d will support and encourage marriage in society.  This means they will strive with all their heart, might, mind and strength to be worthy of marriage and to participate themselves in marriage – note that marriage requires two – a man and a woman.

4. Jesus Christ is the one example of G-d that is given to mortal man.

5. Jesus Christ is also the example of what manner of men mortals should be.  In fact even in scripture Jesus specifically said that the manner of men we should be is – “even as I am”.

Points where there appear to be confusion:

1. Was Jesus married in mortality?   The reason there is confusion is because of the doctrine of vicarious ordinances.  This doctrine allows that ordinances can be done by proxy.  This doctrine actually has two parts.  First proxy part is the proxy for G-d.  An ordained priesthood holder (ordained under the proper keys of the priesthood) can provide a proxy for G-d in performing ordinances.  Second proxy part is the proxy for individuals that have passed from mortality without opportunity to participate themselves in the ordinances.

2. Is the man Jesus Christ resurrected and an exalted Celestial being?  This is a point some posters may be confused and so voice a confusing opinion.  The point of doctrine is that if Jesus is currently a resurrected and exalted Celestial being he will have completed the covenant of marriage – I will summarize the possible theories:  (If I missed any – especially if it is a theory any purport – please add to the list.

1. Jesus was married in the pre-existence.  This theory is not a highly popular theory – but has viable arguments consistent with the idea that G-d is married – Jesus was G-d in the pre-existence – therefor Jesus being G-d before being born of Marry must have been married.

2. Jesus was married by proxy ordinance.  I am not sure this is strongly held or who exactly support this theory – but it does have some merit -  The problem I have with this theory is the precedence for this theory is that Jesus had not opportunity to marry. 

3. Jesus is married but did not do so in this life.  This has possibilities but contradicts the notion that Jesus lived by “perfect” obedience in this life.

4. Jesus was married in this life.  I will not pretend otherwise for myself – this option for me seem the most logical and probable.  I personally am willing to discuss in any detail (which means to put forward answers to any questions one may ask on the subject – even if I personally think the question does not really apply) why I believe this option to have the most merit in the discussion.  I am willing to help others seeking truth in any way I can – I am also open to any point of doctrine or what someone else thinks to be a point of doctrine I may have overlooked and the possibility I could have made a mistake.

5. Jesus is not married – Not sure if this option is supported by any LDS on this forum – it is my personal observation that those supporting this possibility do so contrary to LDS doctrine – which is the purpose of the op of this thread.

Hope this helps anyone seeking understanding – especially of my place in the discussions as they, I and others move forward.  If there is anything I have missed – Please, anyone so inspired feel free to add but please do not be offended if I or other ask questions to validate your additions – it is not you personally that is being questioned.  And if anyone thinks I am being somewhat arrogant; do not think I dislike you for so thinking.  My dear wife often thinks and voices that I am arrogant with my logic and I love her as much and more as anyone else I know.  BTW I make my living by my logic in the field of artificial intelligence and currently hold two copyright and a patent my field.  Thus I am somewhat arrogant – but to be honest I do wonder where some of the arrogance from other posters find traction???

 

The Traveler

This won't help anyone seeking understanding (at least points A-F) because they're all speculative. The only answer to any of them is that we do not know. And that is good enough. If we needed to know, it would be revealed. We do not need to know, and speculation on the matter is, at best, useless, and and at worse, harmful.