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

[LeSellers]

13 hours ago, anatess2 said:

14 hours 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.

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.

While we don't have all the details, we do know a few things about the pre-mortal Christ. One of these is that He was a spirit. But His Father had, even then, a body of flesh and bone. If there was no other difference between Them, this one alone undermines your assumption.

But there are others, as well. On a slightly different tack, the Holy Ghost is also different from the godhood held by either the Father or the Son: The Father is el elyon, God the Most High God, the Son is not the Father, but is the God of this earth (which differs from the god of this world, another being altogether), and He, the Son, had no spirit offspring (whatever this may mean). and Creator of all the universe. But the Holy Ghost is different, too: He, the Holy Ghost, is not the Father and He is not Son: His is a different calling, that of Revelator. He has no offspring, He has no Sonship.

So, to say that the qualities of godhood are equal doesn't withstand our scrutiny. They are One, as the scriptures say. But they are not identical, and They are fundamentally different, different in form, in calling, and "reach". We do not know this, but it seems that the godhood of the Holy Ghost extends to this earth, and that each world has its own Holy Ghost. (Joseph Smith reminds us that the angels who minister to this earth have lived here, or would in the future.)

Lehi

Edited June 10, 2016 by LeSellers

[The Folk Prophet]

6 hours ago, anatess2 said:

But as God, he doesn't have to do certain things to qualify for eternal consequence. 

Anyone who will be an eternal Father must do certain things to "qualify" therefore, though even viewing it that way misses understanding. It's like saying one must "qualify" to be honest by not lying. Well...okay...I guess you can put it that way.

Now, I know, Jesus becomes our Father, etc., and in that regard what you suggest sort of makes sense, except... There's an implication that Jesus...He who is the most qualified, is to remain separate and single for eternity?

Speculative? Sure. But basic reason is basic reason. It strikes me as pretty unreasonable to assume that we will be given the gift of eternal spouses and eternal offspring but Jesus would not.

So "qualify" or not, it seems perfectly reasonable that Jesus needed to be or will need to be eternally sealed at some point. Unless you're trying to suggest that He doesn't need to be married to be with an eternal spouse...that He can live in an eternal marital relationship without being married...

 

Edited June 10, 2016 by The Folk Prophet

[The Folk Prophet]

3 hours ago, Awakened said:

It would make sense that he was already married.

Why? Just because you're saying so? Explain. Back it up. Why does that make sense? It makes no sense to me.

[The Folk Prophet]

2 hours ago, Awakened said:

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

This is false. You can only be partially saved and not married. To be fully saved one must be married.

[The Folk Prophet]

2 hours ago, anatess2 said:

He did not need to get baptized. 

Yes He did. It was just for different reasons.

2 hours ago, anatess2 said:

Eternal marriage is not necessary for our salvation.  It is necessary for the highest level of the Celestial Kingdom which is waaaaay beyond salvation.

As I mentioned in the previous post. This is false. There is only one complete salvation. Anything less is only partial salvation...and at least partial damnation. There is only one way to not be damned.

The implication that Christ won't be married in the eternities implies a partial damnation for Him.

[The Folk Prophet]

1 hour ago, estradling75 said:

I agree that Christ did not need to get baptized, that he already had salvation

By that logic, Christ could have said to the Father, "No" per the commandment and still have qualified. That doesn't work. The reason Christ was "saved" was because He was willing to do all the Father commanded. Had He not been then it was not de facto. (<--Latin to sound smart ).

Edited June 10, 2016 by The Folk Prophet

[estradling75]

29 minutes ago, The Folk Prophet said:

By that logic, Christ could have said to the Father, "No" per the commandment and still have qualified. That doesn't work. The reason Christ was "saved" was because He was willing to do all the Father commanded. Had He not been then it was not de facto. (<--Latin to sound smart ).

Let me put it another way....  If anyone qualified to be exempt it would have been Christ....

But that feeds the point... If Christ was not exempt from Baptism there is no logic in this world that can make him exempt from the other ordinances that are required for salvation or exaltation

Edited June 10, 2016 by estradling75

[The Folk Prophet]

5 minutes ago, estradling75 said:

If anyone qualified to be exempt it would have been Christ....

I'm afraid I'll need some sort of logical support behind this to even consider accepting it. How could Christ possibly be exempt from keeping the commandments? How can that possibly make any sense whatsoever? God is the only one that's allowed to sin?

Edited June 10, 2016 by The Folk Prophet

[estradling75]

6 minutes ago, The Folk Prophet said:

I'm afraid I'll need some sort of logical support behind this to even consider accepting it. How could Christ possibly be exempt from keeping the commandments? How can that possibly make any sense whatsoever? God is the only one that's allowed to sin?

I don't know... Ask the people who are trying to make the case that he was (exempt from ordinances like Endowment or Sealing)...  I am not one of them...  I'm just acknowledging an idea that <If> any one were to be... the only sinless man would be the only possible choice (Fully acknowledging the paradox it creates)

 

 

[Awakened]

1 hour ago, The Folk Prophet said:

This is false. You can only be partially saved and not married. To be fully saved one must be married.

Article of Faith #4: We believe that the first principles and ordinances of the Gospel are: first, Faith in the Lord Jesus Christ; second, Repentance; third, Baptism by immersion for the remission of sins; fourth, Laying on of hands for the gift of the Holy Ghost.

[The Folk Prophet]

2 minutes ago, Awakened said:

Article of Faith #4: We believe that the first principles and ordinances of the Gospel are: first, Faith in the Lord Jesus Christ; second, Repentance; third, Baptism by immersion for the remission of sins; fourth, Laying on of hands for the gift of the Holy Ghost.

Um... O....kay......

Did you have a point?

[Guest MormonGator]

8 minutes ago, Awakened said:

Article of Faith #4: We believe that the first principles and ordinances of the Gospel are: first, Faith in the Lord Jesus Christ; second, Repentance; third, Baptism by immersion for the remission of sins; fourth, Laying on of hands for the gift of the Holy Ghost.

 

6 minutes ago, The Folk Prophet said:

Um... O....kay......

Did you have a point?

Obviously I don't speak for Awakened but I think they were just trying to mention that marriage isn't included in the first principles and ordinances. 

Just trying to translate for you. 

[The Folk Prophet]

1 minute ago, MormonGator said:

 

Obviously I don't speak for Awakened but I think they were just trying to mention that marriage isn't included in the first principles and ordinances. 

Just trying to translate for you. 

I'm well aware of what Awakened was saying. What I'm asking is how that has anything to do with the matter. What is the point? Not what does it mean.

[Guest MormonGator]

1 minute ago, The Folk Prophet said:

I'm well aware of what Awakened was saying. What I'm asking is how that has anything to do with the matter. What is the point? Not what does it mean.

Of course. 

[The Folk Prophet]

1 minute ago, MormonGator said:

 

Obviously I don't speak for Awakened but I think they were just trying to mention that marriage isn't included in the first principles and ordinances. 

Just trying to translate for you. 

I'm well aware of what Awakened was saying. What I'm asking is how that has anything to do with the matter. What is the point? Not what does it mean.

[Anddenex]

What has Anddenex learned from the dialogue regarding Christ being married/unmarried:

1) Mormons are not brainwashed, otherwise we all would be saying "He was married..." or "He wasn't married..." We would be puppets; Unless, the brainwashing purposely taught a certain percentage to say "We believe he was married" and another percentage to say "He was unmarried" and another percentage to be peacekeeper. Hmmm...

2) The thread could have ended with Omega's first response, as everyone said the same thing. There is no official declaration by any prophet, as announced to the Church collectively that Jesus was married. Many, if not all of our past prophets, spoke though in the context of him being married; at least, I have never read a prophet (historically) say he wasn't.

3) If the Bible doesn't specifically say it, then it wasn't so, and it never happened. The Bible doesn't say John the Beloved was married, so we can safely assume he wasn't married either. For that matter, I believe Peter is the only mention of a wife, so all other 15 Apostles (including the one called to fill Judas's vacancy), were "unmarried."

4) Jesus (Jehovah) commanded all his followers to be married. The very first commandment he gave, with his Father, was to multiply and replenish the earth and that "it was not good that the man [which Jesus was] should be alone." A person that commands and then does the opposite is usually what we would consider a "hypocrite." Or as Elder Bednar pointed out "Being consistent in our homes is important for another reason. Many of the Savior's harshest rebukes were directed to hypocrites. Jesus warned His disciples concerning the scribes and Pharisees: 'Do not ye after their works: for they say, and do not.' This strong admonition is sobering given the counsel to 'express love-and show it,' to 'bear testimony - and live it,' and to 'be consistent.'" Jesus was one to say, and do, to bear and to live.

5) We love to speculate and teach possible speculation as truth. This topic diverged from "Jesus wasn't married, why do we command it," to Jesus was not married in this life but he was possibly married in the pre-mortal existence, (as Spirits). Why did he get so lucky to be married as a Spirit, and my poor wife had to wait "at least 6000 years to finally meet me, her (*cough) perfect mate. So unfair to my wife. She will probably (*cough), like most women, nag Heavenly Father about how unfair that was...(Anddenex, reconsiders the last statement, and figures, "what the heck, I am an keyboard warrior, I can say what ever I want on a keyboard -- I have the power! (He-man quote))."

Needless to say. I believe he was married. There is no official doctrine on the topic, and when all truth is revealed I will accept the truth.......

*********************

*cough "He was married."

 

[Awakened]

5 hours ago, The Folk Prophet said:

Um... O....kay......

Did you have a point?

Yes. That is what you have to do to be fully saved. It's a bit more complicated than that but the point is, marriage is not in there.

[Vort]

11 hours ago, Awakened said:

I'm very sure that he wasn't married.

You can't be "very sure". Such things have not been revealed. What you mean is that you believe he was unmarried. That is much different from being "very sure".

11 hours ago, Awakened said:

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.

It would work fine, at least for the less perfect person. And throughout history, a 50-year-old (or even much older) marrying a 17-year-old was not unheard of. Ether 9:24 says that Coriantum took, at an "exceedingly old" age (on the order of 100 years old), a "young maid" for a wife, and begat children by her.

11 hours ago, Awakened said:

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.

Popular though this reasoning is in LDS circles, it is nonsense. Father's consort is fitted for him in every way. She is a being of like glory, perfection, holiness, and power. The idea that she is so emotionally fragile that she would go to pieces were someone to say something nasty about her is simply absurd.

11 hours ago, Awakened said:

I would NOT want someone as beautiful and loving as my Heavenly Mother disrespected in any way...

Then you are surely disappointed every waking moment, since someone just as beautiful and loving as your heavenly Mother -- to wit, your heavenly Father -- is indeed disrespected in every way possible, twenty-four hours a day, seven days a week. Yet somehow he soldiers on.

Edited June 10, 2016 by Vort

[anatess2]

10 hours ago, The Folk Prophet said:

By that logic, Christ could have said to the Father, "No" per the commandment and still have qualified. That doesn't work. The reason Christ was "saved" was because He was willing to do all the Father commanded. Had He not been then it was not de facto. (<--Latin to sound smart ).

TFP, Christ is Christ and is God because he is ONE with the Father.  Yes, Christ could have said No.  If He would have chosen that, then He wouldn't be God.  That's the basis of Free Agency - that Christ choses to be one in Will with the Father freely.  That's why He is God.

[anatess2]

12 hours ago, estradling75 said:

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 other ordinances are not the ordinance of Salvation.  The other ordinances are ordinances of exaltation.  Baptism and Confirmation are the saving ordinances.  The partaking of the Sacrament as Christ has demonstrated also is a renewal of those covenants.  It is completely consistent that Christ demonstrates the ordinances that will qualify us for His Atoning sacrifice.

[The Folk Prophet]

3 hours ago, Awakened said:

That is what you have to do to be fully saved.

No.

First means first. It does not mean all. Which is such a simple idea that it's amazing it needs to be explained. If I told you the first thing you need to do to make a car go is put air in the tires apparently you would then translate it to mean that you can drive the thing without gas. I'm afraid you'd be disappointed.

[The Folk Prophet]

13 minutes ago, anatess2 said:

TFP, Christ is Christ and is God because he is ONE with the Father.  Yes, Christ could have said No.  If He would have chosen that, then He wouldn't be God.  That's the basis of Free Agency - that Christ choses to be one in Will with the Father freely.  That's why He is God.

Are you under the impressing that I don't understand that Christ had Agency? Is that not, actually, basically what I said? Aren't you, rather, just repeating the same thing I said in a different way in a tone that implies you're teaching me something I don't know. I find myself slightly nonplussed.

[The Folk Prophet]

10 minutes ago, anatess2 said:

The other ordinances are not the ordinance of Salvation. 

When you make statements like this you just prove that you don't know what you're talking about.

https://www.lds.org/topics/ordinances?lang=eng

"Some ordinances are essential to our exaltation. These ordinances are called saving ordinances. They include baptism, confirmation, ordination to the Melchizedek Priesthood (for men), the temple endowment, and the marriage sealing. With each of these ordinances, we enter into solemn covenants with the Lord. "

There are, of course, plenty of other sources that confirm the same. Try a search on lds.org for "saving ordinances" and see what you get, and then come back and give your shame-faced acquiescence. 

[anatess2]

10 hours ago, The Folk Prophet said:

Anyone who will be an eternal Father must do certain things to "qualify" therefore, though even viewing it that way misses understanding. It's like saying one must "qualify" to be honest by not lying. Well...okay...I guess you can put it that way.

Now, I know, Jesus becomes our Father, etc., and in that regard what you suggest sort of makes sense, except... There's an implication that Jesus...He who is the most qualified, is to remain separate and single for eternity?

Speculative? Sure. But basic reason is basic reason. It strikes me as pretty unreasonable to assume that we will be given the gift of eternal spouses and eternal offspring but Jesus would not.

So "qualify" or not, it seems perfectly reasonable that Jesus needed to be or will need to be eternally sealed at some point. Unless you're trying to suggest that He doesn't need to be married to be with an eternal spouse...that He can live in an eternal marital relationship without being married...

 

TFP.  To be GOD, one must be married.  That we believe.  You have to have an Eternal Companion to be on the highest level of the Celestial kingdom.

Christ is God.  He was God before he volunteered to become mortal on Earth.  Therefore, I believe that he already has an Eternal Companion in the same manner that I believe there is a Heavenly Mother who is the Father's Eternal Companion.

Christ, as God, volunteered to go through mortal probation to atone for our sins.  This process of becoming mortal did not cause him to lose his Godhood.  Therefore, he remained sealed to his Eternal Companion.

Now, you might task, how did the 3 persons of the Godhead attain Godhood?  Did they go through mortal probation prior to becoming God and then Jesus volunteered to go through it again for us?  That we do not know.  We are told that as man is, God once was.  That tells me that the 3 persons in the Godhead progressed to be God.  But that doesn't necessarily mean that the 3 persons went through the exact same template for their Plan of Happiness through a mortal probation and had a Savior to learn to be God.  Their Plan of Happiness may have been learned in a different manner.  This earth was made for US.  The Father chose this Plan for us.  Therefore, Jesus executed this Plan of Salvation as the path for us.  We, the children of Christ, are taught to perform the ordinances necessary for our salvation as well as sealings as mortals here on earth.  But we are also told there are many worlds.  We, earthlings, are not the only spirits in the universe.

 

[anatess2]

10 hours ago, The Folk Prophet said:

Anyone who will be an eternal Father must do certain things to "qualify" therefore, though even viewing it that way misses understanding. It's like saying one must "qualify" to be honest by not lying. Well...okay...I guess you can put it that way.

Now, I know, Jesus becomes our Father, etc., and in that regard what you suggest sort of makes sense, except... There's an implication that Jesus...He who is the most qualified, is to remain separate and single for eternity?

Speculative? Sure. But basic reason is basic reason. It strikes me as pretty unreasonable to assume that we will be given the gift of eternal spouses and eternal offspring but Jesus would not.

So "qualify" or not, it seems perfectly reasonable that Jesus needed to be or will need to be eternally sealed at some point. Unless you're trying to suggest that He doesn't need to be married to be with an eternal spouse...that He can live in an eternal marital relationship without being married...

 

TFP.  To be GOD, one must be married.  That we believe.  You have to have an Eternal Companion to be on the highest level of the Celestial kingdom.

Christ is God.  He was God before he volunteered to become mortal on Earth.  Therefore, I believe that he already has an Eternal Companion in the same manner that I believe there is a Heavenly Mother who is the Father's Eternal Companion.

Christ, as God, volunteered to go through mortal probation to atone for our sins.  This process of becoming mortal did not cause him to lose his Godhood.  Therefore, he remained sealed to his Eternal Companion.

Now, you might task, how did the 3 persons of the Godhead attain Godhood?  Did they go through mortal probation prior to becoming God and then Jesus volunteered to go through it again for us?  That we do not know.  We are told that as man is, God once was.  That tells me that the 3 persons in the Godhead progressed to be God.  But that doesn't necessarily mean that the 3 persons went through the exact same template for their Plan of Happiness through a mortal probation and had a Savior to learn to be God.  Their Plan of Happiness may have been learned in a different manner.  This earth was made for US.  The Father chose this Plan for us.  Therefore, Jesus executed this Plan of Salvation as the path for us.  We, the children of Christ, are taught to perform the ordinances necessary for our salvation as well as sealings as mortals here on earth.  But we are also told there are many worlds.  We, earthlings, are not the only spirits in the universe.