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

[The Folk Prophet]

6 minutes ago, anatess2 said:

Wrong?  You got revelation to the contrary?

There have been plenty.

What we know:

• Christ was God before His mortality.
• Marriage is an ordinance that must be performed in mortality (As Spirit Dragon pointed out -- but weakly. This is not an "I believe" thing. It is doctrine.)

So believing that Christ was married in the pre-existence flies in the face of truths that have been given us.

I'm not particularly passionate about the idea one way or another though. So feel free to think me mistaken. I won't debate the matter too harshly.

[anatess2]

29 minutes ago, The Folk Prophet said:

There have been plenty.

What we know:

• Christ was God before His mortality.
• Marriage is an ordinance that must be performed in mortality (As Spirit Dragon pointed out -- but weakly. This is not an "I believe" thing. It is doctrine.)

So believing that Christ was married in the pre-existence flies in the face of truths that have been given us.

I'm not particularly passionate about the idea one way or another though. So feel free to think me mistaken. I won't debate the matter too harshly.

 

1 hour ago, anatess2 said:

But then, the idea that what man is, God once was can be interpreted to mean they've been through their period of progression from the level we are now.  Whether that was through mortality or some other execution of a Plan of Happiness, I believe that to be exalted, let alone to be God, requires an eternal companion - in the same way that we believe there is a Heavenly Mother.

 

[Traveler]

37 minutes ago, The Folk Prophet said:

Which proves nothing, as we well know that there will be many, many who die without marriage and will be given the opportunity. Our best understanding at this point is that these things will be taken care of in the Millennium. I'll admit it sounds a bit odd, the idea of doing work for the dead for the Savior, but if one is to speculate on things that we have no idea about whatsoever, then that's as fine a speculation as any.

It does prove something - because they are the words of Christ.  Note also that Jesus was baptized - something that can be taken care of in the Millennium as well - but his intent was to "fulfill all righteousness".  You may want to think about that before you say "it" proves nothing.  One may ask - why not say directly in scriptures - so those that demand the proof they want have it?  The Pharisees asked a similar question of Jesus - if he was the son of G-d?  Some things come through the witness of the Holy Ghost - I take that back - only things that are true.

 

The Traveler

[Blackmarch]

Either he was or he wasn't. It's been debated for centuries.
The cut off time for when it's going to be a deal breaker for what kind of reward or whatnot you get in the after life is still yet to come.

[Traveler]

37 minutes ago, The Folk Prophet said:

Which proves nothing, as we well know that there will be many, many who die without marriage and will be given the opportunity. Our best understanding at this point is that these things will be taken care of in the Millennium. I'll admit it sounds a bit odd, the idea of doing work for the dead for the Savior, but if one is to speculate on things that we have no idea about whatsoever, then that's as fine a speculation as any.

It does prove something - because they are the words of Christ.  Note also that Jesus was baptized - something that can be taken care of in the Millennium as well - but his intent was to "fulfill all righteousness".  You may want to think about that before you say "it" proves nothing.  One may ask - why not say directly in scriptures - so those that demand the proof they want have it?  The Pharisees asked a similar question of Jesus - if he was the son of G-d?  Some things come through the witness of the Holy Ghost - I take that back - only things that are true.

 

The Traveler

[Blackmarch]

I tend to lean towards more that Christ was married IMO. Why would he have it broadcast to the world? God hasn't exactly shown the world that he's married either.

Edited June 9, 2016 by Blackmarch

[The Folk Prophet]

1 hour ago, Traveler said:

It does prove something - because they are the words of Christ.  Note also that Jesus was baptized - something that can be taken care of in the Millennium as well - but his intent was to "fulfill all righteousness".  You may want to think about that before you say "it" proves nothing.  One may ask - why not say directly in scriptures - so those that demand the proof they want have it?  The Pharisees asked a similar question of Jesus - if he was the son of G-d?  Some things come through the witness of the Holy Ghost - I take that back - only things that are true.

 

The Traveler

It doesn't prove stink.

[Traveler]

32 minutes ago, The Folk Prophet said:

It doesn't prove stink.

I have the impression that I have offended you.  I apologize.

 

The Traveler

Edited June 9, 2016 by Traveler

[anatess2]

Am I the only one that think Jesus doesn't need to do anything that are required of us anymore as he is already God and so he is already exalted?

Am I also the only one that think that Eternal Marriage is a requirement to be God as to be God one has to be exalted?

I didn't think this speculative conclusion would be so rare.

Edited June 9, 2016 by anatess2

[estradling75]

2 minutes ago, anatess2 said:

Am I the only one that think Jesus doesn't need to do anything that are required of us anymore as he is already God and so he is already exalted?

Am I also the one that think that Eternal Marriage as a requirement to be God as to be God one has to be exalted?

I didn't think this speculative conclusion would be so rare.

Jesus being an exception would be acceptable given what he is...

However the one ordnance we have a record of shows that Jesus was not an exception to it...  And a very logical response it to assume that reasoning and logic for his not being a exception to one holds true for all the others...

But we have no proof either way for any other ordinance

 

[anatess2]

8 minutes ago, estradling75 said:

Jesus being an exception would be acceptable given what he is...

However the one ordnance we have a record of shows that Jesus was not an exception to it...  And a very logical response it to assume that reasoning and logic for his not being a exception to one holds true for all the others...

But we have no proof either way for any other ordinance

 

He is not an exception to the conditions of mortal probation.  But as God, he doesn't have to do certain things to qualify for eternal consequence.  Basically, he didn't stop being God just because he volunteered to become man so that he has to go through the process to become God again.

And yes, this is all speculative.

Edited June 9, 2016 by anatess2

[estradling75]

2 minutes ago, anatess2 said:

He is not an exception to the conditions of mortal probation.  But as God, he doesn't have to do certain things to qualify for eternal consequence.  Basically, he didn't stop being God just because he volunteered to become man, so that he has to go through the process to become God again.

And yes, this is all speculative.

Right... so why is baptism a condition of mortal probation that Jesus was not an exception to and the ordinances of the temple like Sealing not a condition of mortal probation?

[LeSellers]

25 minutes ago, estradling75 said:

28 minutes ago, anatess2 said:

He is not an exception to the conditions of mortal probation.  But as God, he doesn't have to do certain things to qualify for eternal consequence.  Basically, he didn't stop being God just because he volunteered to become man, so that he has to go through the process to become God again.

And yes, this is all speculative.

Right... so why is baptism a condition of mortal probation that Jesus was not an exception to and the ordinances of the temple like Sealing not a condition of mortal probation?

What if we assume that "God_x" is a title for one or more Priesthood offices, like "Stake President" and "President of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (but with a much higher "holiness quotient")?

Jesus was ordained to the Office(s) of God₂/Son of God/Redeemer/Savior/Creator/etc./&c. At some point, He will be (or has been) ordained to a different Office (also called "God₁"). There are different Offices, both "God_x", and each with its own requisite ordinances, etc.

Lehi

Edited June 9, 2016 by LeSellers

[Traveler]

I have wondered about posting what I am going to post at this time.  The concern is that the information – or if you will “doctrine” I am going to reference is of sacred nature.  This information was presented to me and a few others at the temple under the authority and direction of the Priesthood and those that hold and exercise the proper keys of that Priesthood and has to do with the most sacred and important covenant with G-d concerning marriage – a marriage covenant that currently is only performed in the sacred confines of the temple.  I will not go into all the details – This just is not the place.  Just two points.  First that the sacred and holy covenant of marriage made in the temple of G-d is the beginning of a Celestial Kingdom.  Second that a Celestial Kingdom cannot and will not exist except it is presided over by a couple (man and woman) that has established, made holy, whole and complete that sacred marriage covenant.

 

The Traveler

[Awakened]

I'm very sure that he wasn't married. In this life. Jesus Christ was already a God before he came down here. It would make sense that he was already married. And two more things. 1. Could you imagine being married to someone completely perfect? It wouldn't work at all. There's too much of a difference in progression.To put it into perspective, it would be like a 50-year-old marrying a 17-year-old. And 2. Jesus Christ never mentioned his wife or wives probably for the same reason that Heavenly Father does not. Because he utterly respects and loves them and holds them in such high regard and is, thus, very understandably, protective of them, even their very name. I mean, look at how much a lot of people treat Jesus Christ's and Heavenly Father's name with irreverence and blasphemy.

No, as much as it actually hurts me to not know my Heavenly Mother at all, it's probably for the best that such things are not talked about in this life. I would NOT want someone as beautiful and loving as my Heavenly Mother disrespected in any way... 

Edited June 9, 2016 by Awakened

[LeSellers]

6 minutes ago, Awakened said:

Jesus Christ was already a God before he came down here.

That is true. But it ignores the fact that His godhood was not of the same quality as that of Father (and Mother). Being "God" does not require being married if there are different classes of Gods.

If there is no need to be married during mortality, why do we do sealings in the Temples, since, under this heading, they could simply do them on their own in the Millennium?

Lehi

[zil]

37 minutes ago, Awakened said:

It would make sense that he was already married.

Only if you can find a way around the gospel teaching that saving ordinances must be performed by a mortal being.

38 minutes ago, Awakened said:

1. Could you imagine being married to someone completely perfect? It wouldn't work at all. There's too much of a difference in progression.To put it into perspective, it would be like a 50-year-old marrying a 17-year-old.

IMO, this shows a misunderstanding of Christ, his relation to and feelings for the rest of us, the purpose of mortality, the omniscience of God, etc. etc.  It would be NOTHING like a mortal 50-year-old marrying a mortal 17-year-old.

41 minutes ago, Awakened said:

2. Jesus Christ never mentioned his wife or wives probably for the same reason that Heavenly Father does not. Because he utterly respects and loves them and holds them in such high regard and is, thus, very understandably, protective of them, even their very name. I mean, look at how much a lot of people treat Jesus Christ's and Heavenly Father's name with irreverence and blasphemy.

This argument could be used as much in favor of Christ having a wife in mortality (about whom we know nothing) as having one before mortality* and as not having one until after mortality.

*This version is the least consistent with revealed doctrine.

[Awakened]

2 minutes ago, zil said:

Only if you can find a way around the gospel teaching that saving ordinances must be performed by a mortal being.

IMO, this shows a misunderstanding of Christ, his relation to and feelings for the rest of us, the purpose of mortality, the omniscience of God, etc. etc.  It would be NOTHING like a mortal 50-year-old marrying a mortal 17-year-old.

This argument could be used as much in favor of Christ having a wife in mortality (about whom we know nothing) as having one before mortality* and as not having one until after mortality.

*This version is the least consistent with revealed doctrine.

1. Being saved and being married are two different things. You can still be saved and not be married, easily.

2. Christ was perfect. We are not. We really really are not. He was far progressed already in his current state in mortality or else he would not have been able to do the atonement. The atonement was an uncomprehendingly powerful act and was literally unimaginably horrendous. So much so that if anyone else were to attempt it, they would have immediately died under it all. Christ loves each and every one of us, there is no doubt. But it is a familial love I'm sure, which is to say, not a lesser love but a different kind of love.

3. True. I'll give you that one.

[anatess2]

3 hours ago, estradling75 said:

Right... so why is baptism a condition of mortal probation that Jesus was not an exception to and the ordinances of the temple like Sealing not a condition of mortal probation?

He did not need to get baptized.  He doesn't need salvation.  He got baptized to fulfill all righteousness.  That means, he got baptized because it is the ordinance required for our salvation - being baptized and confirmed by the Holy Ghost as happened to Christ - God himself confirmed him after his baptism.  Eternal marriage is not necessary for our salvation.  It is necessary for the highest level of the Celestial Kingdom which is waaaaay beyond salvation.

[anatess2]

52 minutes ago, LeSellers said:

That is true. But it ignores the fact that His godhood was not of the same quality as that of Father (and Mother). Being "God" does not require being married if there are different classes of Gods.

If there is no need to be married during mortality, why do we do sealings in the Temples, since, under this heading, they could simply do them on their own in the Millennium?

Lehi

Uhmm... I think this is stretching it.  The first pages of the Book of Mormon does state that there is only ONE God.  I tend to see this Oneness as literal - which includes all its qualifications as well as its Will.

[zil]

4 minutes ago, Awakened said:

1. Being saved and being married are two different things. You can still be saved and not be married, easily.

2. Christ was perfect. We are not. We really really are not. He was far progressed already in his current state in mortality or else he would not have been able to do the atonement. The atonement was an uncomprehendingly powerful act and was literally unimaginably horrendous. So much so that if anyone else were to attempt it, they would have immediately died under it all. Christ loves each and every one of us, there is no doubt. But it is a familial love I'm sure, which is to say, not a lesser love but a different kind of love.

3. True. I'll give you that one.

1. Poor wording choice on my part.  Sealing to a spouse is one of those ordinances which must be done in mortality (according to revealed doctrine).  We have absolutely no reason to believe there's any other option.

2. Yeah, so?  To paraphrase Nibley, so long as the whole purpose of those above is to reach down in love to those below (and bring them up), and the whole purpose of those below is to reach up in love to those above (for help being lifted up), there is no contention / problem / hierarchy.  Just as Mary was worthy to be Christ's mother, I believe it possible for there to have been a woman worthy to be Christ's wife (had that been part of the plan - I don't know that it was, but I am certain it is a possibility, and I personally believe he was married, in mortality).

[Awakened]

11 minutes ago, zil said:

1. Poor wording choice on my part.  Sealing to a spouse is one of those ordinances which must be done in mortality (according to revealed doctrine).  We have absolutely no reason to believe there's any other option.

2. Yeah, so?  To paraphrase Nibley, so long as the whole purpose of those above is to reach down in love to those below (and bring them up), and the whole purpose of those below is to reach up in love to those above (for help being lifted up), there is no contention / problem / hierarchy.  Just as Mary was worthy to be Christ's mother, I believe it possible for there to have been a woman worthy to be Christ's wife (had that been part of the plan - I don't know that it was, but I am certain it is a possibility, and I personally believe he was married, in mortality).

1. OK, where is this revealed doctrine? I need to know now. Because that doesn't make any sense. As Le Sellers said, we do proxy sealings in the temple as well. And furthermore, who says Christ didn't already experience mortality on another world in his natural progression? Christ didn't NEED to come down here actually. That's why it's called the condescension of God. It was diety stepping up out of his throne to come down here to help all of us.

2. So? Again, it's a matter of relatedness. You really can't imagine how hard it would be to connect romantically with someone who has progressed wayyy beyond you? Who has already long since thought of things you're just now thinking about and etc. People have split off relationships already because there was a huge gap between where they were and where the other person was, spiritually. Now multiply that by literally a thousand. Probably more.

Edited June 9, 2016 by Awakened

[zil]

5 minutes ago, Awakened said:

1. OK, where is this revealed doctrine? I need to know now. Because that doesn't make any sense. As Le Sellers said, we do proxy sealings in the temple as well. And furthermore, who says Christ didn't already experience mortality on another world in his natural progression? Christ didn't NEED to come down here actually. That's why it's called the condescension of God. It was diety stepping up out of his throne to come down here to help all of us.

2. So? Again, it's a matter of relatedness. You really can't imagine how hard it would be to connect romantically with someone who has progressed wayyy beyond you? Who has already long since thought of things you're just now thinking about and etc. People have split off relationships already because there was a huge gap between where they were and where the other person was, spiritually. Now multiply that by literally a thousand. Probably more.

1. Exactly _mortals_ do proxy for the dead - no one other than a mortal can perform the ordinance (and they do it for themselves, if possible, and for the dead).  As Lehi pointed out, if the dead could do it for themselves, it'd sure be easier if they'd get on with it.  As for Christ being mortal elsewhere - we don't believe in reincarnation.  Christ was a spirit being before being born of Mary into mortality.  I fully recognize that Christ was a God before being born into mortality, but that does not require that he was already resurrected (how could he die and get reresurrected if he was already immortal?), it means he was a member of the Godhead.

2. I still say "so".  I simply do not see the separating "gap" or problem.  Your example of mortals having problems with each other does not mandate that no one could have "endured" being married to Christ in their mortality.  And just how do you know that the spirit of a woman hadn't already progressed to the point where she was worthy of exaltation and needed nothing more than to come to earth and experience mortality?  Seems probable that's the sort of woman Christ would have married (someone similar to himself).

The bigger point is, we simply don't know.  But there are no doctrinal foundations in favor of Christ already being 100% exalted, including sealed, before coming to earth as a mortal (indeed, it's contrary to all other revealed doctrine).  There is certainly no doctrinal support for Christ experiencing multiple mortalities.  There are rational reasons to believe he was married in mortality; and there are rational reasons to believe he wasn't, but that he would be sealed.

I suspect that right now, he's thinking the exalted version of: "Good grief, you guys, get off your butts and go find someone who needs your service."

 

[estradling75]

37 minutes ago, anatess2 said:

He did not need to get baptized.  He doesn't need salvation.  He got baptized to fulfill all righteousness.  That means, he got baptized because it is the ordinance required for our salvation - being baptized and confirmed by the Holy Ghost as happened to Christ - God himself confirmed him after his baptism.  Eternal marriage is not necessary for our salvation.  It is necessary for the highest level of the Celestial Kingdom which is waaaaay beyond salvation.

Your logic does not connect...

I agree that Christ did not need to get baptized, that he already had salvation (Or was never subject to the fall)

And I agree that baptism is necessary for us to be be saved (because we are subject to the fall)

But to then say Christ performed one ordinance he didn't need, but didn't perform the other ordinances he may or may not have needed shows a total lack of any kind of constancy. 

[The Folk Prophet]

5 hours ago, anatess2 said:

Am I the only one that think Jesus doesn't need to do anything that are required of us anymore as he is already God and so he is already exalted?

I hope so. Because that is also non-doctrinal.