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

[Traveler]

6 minutes ago, anatess2 said:

Hebrews 5:8

Though he were a Son, yet learned he obedience by the things which he suffered;

Exegesis In a sentence:  "There's no limit to learning."

To me, this scripture supports the teaching that God continually progresses and continually exercises Free Agency.  The Godhead can be perfect, the Godhead can have perfect knowledge, the Godhead can have perfect Will, the Godhead an have perfect Obedience.  But they choose to be all this in every single moment of every single grain of time in very single spark of eternity.

Jesus becoming mortal was not exempt from the veil.  He himself had no recollection of his existence prior to mortality.  But his Spirit is already perfected.  He is already God.  That means - that He has already progressed to the point that His Spirit already chooses that which is The Father's.  But, without recollection of The Father, and subject to mortal weaknesses and temptation, he learned obedience through his suffering for his Spirit to overcome his mortality.

 

I think I have a little different take on this than you do.  Especially considering the word suffered.  I believe that Jesus learned as we do - by practice and getting better at it.  I think that he had to read the scriptures and study them to know what is in them - that the more he worked at something the better he got at it.  I don't think that being perfect means that you don't have to work at being perfect 

 

The Traveler 

[Guest MormonGator]

1 minute ago, anatess2 said:

Maybe he doesn't.  But we've been through a lot worse and came out good on the other side.  Lots of history between me and TFP.

Then maybe it's best if you both just drop it then so you don't create more "history".

[The Folk Prophet]

27 minutes ago, anatess2 said:

Can't handle a discussion?  An exchange of ideas?  I know you better than that.

I am simply not interested in a discussion where useless emotional responses are thrown into the mix that make it all uncomfortable and unpleasant. If you want to discuss things logically then keep it logical. If you want to talk about things making your blood boil I'm walking away.

[anatess2]

1 minute ago, MormonGator said:

Actually Anatess maybe he just doesn't feel like dealing. 

Maybe he doesn't.  But we've been through a lot worse and came out good on the other side.  Lots of history between me and TFP.

[Traveler]

6 minutes ago, anatess2 said:

Hebrews 5:8

Though he were a Son, yet learned he obedience by the things which he suffered;

Exegesis In a sentence:  "There's no limit to learning."

To me, this scripture supports the teaching that God continually progresses and continually exercises Free Agency.  The Godhead can be perfect, the Godhead can have perfect knowledge, the Godhead can have perfect Will, the Godhead an have perfect Obedience.  But they choose to be all this in every single moment of every single grain of time in very single spark of eternity.

Jesus becoming mortal was not exempt from the veil.  He himself had no recollection of his existence prior to mortality.  But his Spirit is already perfected.  He is already God.  That means - that He has already progressed to the point that His Spirit already chooses that which is The Father's.  But, without recollection of The Father, and subject to mortal weaknesses and temptation, he learned obedience through his suffering for his Spirit to overcome his mortality.

 

I think I have a little different take on this than you do.  Especially considering the word suffered.  I believe that Jesus learned as we do - by practice and getting better at it.  I think that he had to read the scriptures and study them to know what is in them - that the more he worked at something the better he got at it.  I don't think that being perfect means that you don't have to work at being perfect 

 

The Traveler 

[Awakened]

OK, I'm getting attacked by three different people here on 2-3 different points. If it was just one or two people, I could handle the debate, but yeah.Thread is generally a mess now. You guys need to stop attacking each other and calm down here. This is getting kind of silly.

Edited June 10, 2016 by Awakened

[anatess2]

2 hours ago, MormonGator said:

Then maybe it's best if you both just drop it then so you don't create more "history".

We have a good history.  I like making more of it.

[Edspringer]

On 06/06/2016 at 6:23 PM, TilKingdomCome said:

Hey So this is a question I posed to the missionaries in my most recent lesson, and they said I should just ask online to look for an answer.

The Church places a lot of importance on marriage, and having kids. It's considered a part of the Plan of Salvation.

But the Church also says that it's important to live like Christ and that, by being baptised, you agree to follow Christ's example.

Yet Christ never got married. If marriage is so important, and if we're meant to live like Christ, why didn't He get married or have kids? Is that a sign that marriage/family isn't as important as the Church says it is?

Well,

I personally believe our Savior was married, that He had a wife. Many scripture passages were mentioned here as indication that Jesus was married indeed. Actually, there’s one particular passage that amazes me about this topic: Mark 14:1-9

After two days was the feast of the passover, and of unleavened bread: and the chief priests and the scribes sought how they might take him by craft, and put him to death.

 

But they said, Not on the feast day, lest there be an uproar of the people.

 

And being in Bethany in the house of Simon the leper, as he sat at meat, there came a woman having an alabaster box of ointment of spikenard very precious; and she brake the box, and poured it on his head.

 

And there were some that had indignation within themselves, and said, Why was this waste of the ointment made?

 

For it might have been sold for more than three hundred pence, and have been given to the poor. And they murmured against her.

 

And Jesus said, Let her alone; why trouble ye her? she hath wrought a good work on me.

For ye have the poor with you always, and whensoever ye will ye may do them good: but me ye have not always.

 

She hath done what she could: she is come aforehand to anoint my body to the burying.

 

Verily I say unto you, Wheresoever this gospel shall be preached throughout the whole world, this also that she hath done shall be spoken of for a memorial of her.

 

This is a peculiar scripture passage worth discussing and pondering about.

 

Ok, as I said, I strongly believe our Redeemer was married to a worthy woman. There are other facts we could and should consider as well:

 

1) Mary, our Savior’s mother, became a widow at some point of our Lord’s earthly life. Did Jesus have to take care of her? What would it imply in his married life and ministry?

       2)  If Christ had a child or children, what implications would that fact cause not only to Christianity, but to the natural world?

 

 

[anatess2]

52 minutes ago, Awakened said:

OK, I'm getting attacked by three different people here on 2-3 different points. If it was just one or two people, I could handle the debate, but yeah.Thread is generally a mess now. You guys need to stop attacking each other and calm down here. This is getting kind of silly.

Awakened... nobody is attacking anybody.  We're having a discussion.  Some people get a bit rowdy with their passion.  We're all discussing speculative topics (outside of Church teaching) so there's a variety of flavors on it.  The way I handle multiple discussions is to organize similar thoughts into one discussion using mutli-quote and then I reply to them.  And if I want to address another train of thought then I do so.  Or I just let that other thought be handled by someone else and not respond to it.

I don't think this is silly.  I think it is great, actually.  I don't usually talk about these things with the ward folks, not even my HT/VT since it's all speculative stuff.

[anatess2]

52 minutes ago, Awakened said:

OK, I'm getting attacked by three different people here on 2-3 different points. If it was just one or two people, I could handle the debate, but yeah.Thread is generally a mess now. You guys need to stop attacking each other and calm down here. This is getting kind of silly.

Awakened... nobody is attacking anybody.  We're having a discussion.  Some people get a bit rowdy with their passion.  We're all discussing speculative topics (outside of Church teaching) so there's a variety of flavors on it.  The way I handle multiple discussions is to organize similar thoughts into one discussion using mutli-quote and then I reply to them.  And if I want to address another train of thought then I do so.  Or I just let that other thought be handled by someone else and not respond to it.

I don't think this is silly.  I think it is great, actually.  I don't usually talk about these things with the ward folks, not even my HT/VT since it's all speculative stuff.

[anatess2]

2 hours ago, Traveler said:

I think I have a little different take on this than you do.  Especially considering the word suffered.  I believe that Jesus learned as we do - by practice and getting better at it.  I think that he had to read the scriptures and study them to know what is in them - that the more he worked at something the better he got at it.  I don't think that being perfect means that you don't have to work at being perfect 

 

The Traveler 

I said this:  " But, without recollection of The Father, and subject to mortal weaknesses and temptation, he learned obedience through his suffering for his Spirit to overcome his mortality."  Suffering here doesn't just apply to the events of the Passion of Christ.  Suffering here pertains to the totality of his Mortal Existence - where he was subject to temptation, hunger, fear, darkness, and most of all the VEIL between pre-mortal and mortal existence.

I said - Jesus was not exempt from the veil.  He was born mortal by Mary.  HIS SPIRIT - on the other hand - has already achieved perfection.  Therefore, His Spirit did not have to change anymore to be perfect.  What His Spirit needed to do in mortality was to overcome his mortal nature - that includes having faith, gaining knowledge, learning from Scriptures, and everything else as a part of the VEIL.  And he has to overcome the fear and the physical toll of pain and suffering.

This is different from us because our pre-mortal Spirits is given our mortal bodies so that our Spirits can CHANGE to be like Christ's and be perfected.  So - the VEIL, the mortal weaknesses, Christ is already Christ... he doesn't have to change to be like Christ.

 

 

[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 

[anatess2]

24 minutes ago, Traveler said:

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 

Okay, that doesn't make sense to me.

Do you believe Christ is God BEFORE he was born of Mary?  If yes, then your question doesn't make sense... because if you believe Christ is God before he was born of Mary, then your question would be "why, if we follow Jesus, didn't we also follow his example and become God and do it the same correct way - before coming to earth".  Do you see the problem there?

Now, that question can be made to apply if you don't believe Christ is God before he was born of Mary.

[anatess2]

duplicate.

Edited June 10, 2016 by anatess2

[anatess2]

1 hour ago, Edspringer said:

Well,

 

I personally believe our Savior was married, that He had a wife. Many scripture passages were mentioned here as indication that Jesus was married indeed. Actually, there’s one particular passage that amazes me about this topic: Mark 14:1-9

 

After two days was the feast of the passover, and of unleavened bread: and the chief priests and the scribes sought how they might take him by craft, and put him to death.

 

 

 

But they said, Not on the feast day, lest there be an uproar of the people.

 

 

 

And being in Bethany in the house of Simon the leper, as he sat at meat, there came a woman having an alabaster box of ointment of spikenard very precious; and she brake the box, and poured it on his head.

 

 

And there were some that had indignation within themselves, and said, Why was this waste of the ointment made?

 

 

 

For it might have been sold for more than three hundred pence, and have been given to the poor. And they murmured against her.

 

 

And Jesus said, Let her alone; why trouble ye her? she hath wrought a good work on me.

 

For ye have the poor with you always, and whensoever ye will ye may do them good: but me ye have not always.

 

 

 

She hath done what she could: she is come aforehand to anoint my body to the burying.

 

 

 

Verily I say unto you, Wheresoever this gospel shall be preached throughout the whole world, this also that she hath done shall be spoken of for a memorial of her.

 

 

 

This is a peculiar scripture passage worth discussing and pondering about.

 

 

 

Ok, as I said, I strongly believe our Redeemer was married to a worthy woman. There are other facts we could and should consider as well:

 

 

 

1) Mary, our Savior’s mother, became a widow at some point of our Lord’s earthly life. Did Jesus have to take care of her? What would it imply in his married life and ministry?

 

       2)  If Christ had a child or children, what implications would that fact cause not only to Christianity, but to the natural world?

 

 

 

 

 

Are you trying to say here that you believe Christ was married to Mary Magdalene?

I distinctly remember (I tried to search lds.org but I couldn't find it)... but back when the book DaVinci Code by Dan Brown came out and caused a great controversy, one of the apostles declared that we don't know if Jesus was married or not but we know that Jesus is not married to and had children by Mary Magdalene.

Does anybody here recall this?  Did I understand this correctly?

[anatess2]

duplicate.

Edited June 10, 2016 by anatess2

[The Folk Prophet]

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

[Guest MormonGator]

18 minutes 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".

Depends on the delivery. Someone with people/verbal skills can find ways to logically defend things so that they don't come across as an "attack". 

Like it or not it's a reality that offline and online people listen to logic-and the person actually saying it. Relying solely on your argument and ignoring others thoughts and feelings will get you no where because people will stop listening to you. Then it doesn't matter how "logical" you are. Sure, you'll feel better about yourself and think that you are the only shining beacon of intelligence and logic in the world, but that won't get you far either. 

(Not you meaning FP) 

 

Edited June 10, 2016 by MormonGator

[anatess2]

11 minutes ago, MormonGator said:

Depends on the delivery. Someone with people/verbal skills can find ways to logically defend things so that they don't come across as an "attack". 

 

True.  But delivery is very sketchy when all you have is the written word and we didn't all go to college to study Written Communication Skills in the English Language.

It's better to just give people some room to express stuff in their own communication style.

[zil]

19 minutes ago, anatess2 said:

Are you trying to say here that you believe Christ was married to Mary Magdalene?

I distinctly remember (I tried to search lds.org but I couldn't find it)... but back when the book DaVinci Code by Dan Brown came out and caused a great controversy, one of the apostles declared that we don't know if Jesus was married or not but we know that Jesus is not married to and had children by Mary Magdalene.

Does anybody here recall this?  Did I understand this correctly?

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.

[Guest MormonGator]

9 minutes ago, anatess2 said:

True.  But delivery is very sketchy when all you have is the written word and we didn't all go to college to study Written Communication Skills in the English Language.

It's better to just give people some room to express stuff in their own communication style.

Right, that's why it helps to err on the side of not being overly argumentative or over "See how logical and intelligent I am?". Be personable. Don't argue about everything. Try to compliment people when you can. Perhaps most importantly remember that you don't know everything. No, not even you. You don't want to act like you read and memorized "How to Lose Friends and Alienate People." 

Believe me I speak from personal experience. In my 20's I thought I was Mr. Logic! Mr. Intelligence! Of course everything I say is based in pure reason! Like Immanuel Kant! Then I realized that no one listens to you after awhile if you come across as arrogant, obnoxious, or uninterested in what others say or think. 

That people over 30 can't grasp this is truly beyond my meager intellectual abilities. 

Edited June 10, 2016 by MormonGator

[Guest MormonGator]

duplicate 

Edited June 10, 2016 by MormonGator

[anatess2]

20 minutes 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.

Right... but the only time that I know of that the story of the anointing is tied to Jesus being married is in the DaVinci Code where Dan Brown claims that Mary Magdalene was married to Jesus and that the Catholic Church suppressed this information by tying Magdalene to the woman with the 7 demons who is the same woman who anointed Christ with her hair, therefore diminishing her role in the scriptures... or some such.

[The Folk Prophet]

41 minutes ago, MormonGator said:

Depends on the delivery. Someone with people/verbal skills can find ways to logically defend things so that they don't come across as an "attack". 

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

Even the likes of humble soft-spoken President Monson gets accused of "attacks".

[Anddenex]

26 minutes 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.

I have heard/read the same but not sure where, or if it was spoken by any of our Church leaders or through a lecture at while attending BYU.