Was jesus married


Jeries
 Share

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, mikbone said:

What is Authority?  Can you define it?  

I'm going to side with Vort on this. 

The dictionary definition speaks of two things 

  • Power to act
  • Power to command

In the context of our doctrines on the priesthood

  • Authority is power to act
  • Keys are the power to command those actors to use that authority inherent in them.

What this means is that if one is ordained an elder, he already has the authority.  But he may not exercise that authority unless that course of action is unlocked by the ones who hold the keys.

My closest friends are all authorized to come into my house at any time.  They can come knock on my door and I'll always allow them in.  But they still need me to unlock the doors to do so.

But if one is not ordained an elder, we must first ordain him an elder, then he will be authorized to act as the one holding keys has dictated.

1 hour ago, mikbone said:

Authority is the power or right to give orders, make decisions, and enforce obedience.

I hope you are aware that many times, the common word usage is not the same as the gospel usage of a word.

1 hour ago, mikbone said:

President Nelson has Authority to make decisions, give order, and enforce obedience for the church.

No argument there.

1 hour ago, mikbone said:

I have the same authority for my family (as long as I am righteous)

No argument there.

1 hour ago, mikbone said:

The Bishop has the authority to guide my ward.

No argument there.

1 hour ago, mikbone said:

Priesthood Authority is linked to the Keys.

No argument there.

1 hour ago, mikbone said:

You need to re-read the entire conference talk.

Right back at you.

1 hour ago, mikbone said:

Sidney Rigdon attempted to anoint himself with the priesthood so that he could lay claim to the church leadership.

He was excommunicated.  He did not have the keys.  The Quorum of the twelve had the keys to excommunicate Brother Rigdon. 

And that's just what I said earlier.

The problem is that as you quoted earlier

Quote

 priesthood authority is governed by priesthood holders who hold priesthood keys, 

you bolded this entire sentence as if it was proof positive of your position.  Let me do this:

Quote

 priesthood authority is governed by priesthood holders who hold priesthood keys, 

To rephrase for clarity: Priesthood keys govern priesthood authority.  --"govern" does not mean"equals"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, mikbone said:

From Dallin H. Oaks.  Attorney and First Councilor of the presidency  April 14, Conference

We have the same priesthood.

Authority is governed by the keys.

Power is dependent upon righteousness, faith, obedience, etc.

The keys of the priesthood are very important.  If you don't understand the keys of the priesthood, you don't understand the priesthood.

 

13 minutes ago, mikbone said:

Without the consent of your bishop you cannot give your child a name and a blessing, baptize, confirm, confer or ordain the priesthood. You cannot perform temple sealings without the keys.  You cannot even bless the sacrament at home for your own family without the consent of your bishop.

Try it I dare you.

I can see you didn't read the quotes. If you read the quotes you would see I mentioned three parts: authority, keys, and power. We all hold the same priesthood (authority). We all do not have the same keys to act and perform specific responsibilities. We all do not share the same authority.

As I said your "/facepalm" is a sad irony.

The stake president and bishop hold the same authority, their keys allow them to act within specific roles. It is interesting how my stake president and bishop and visiting authorities are all saying we hold the same authority, but Mikebone says otherwise. OK, I know which I have more faith in their understanding of the priesthood.

If you can point to a General Authority statement where our authority is different, I would love to read it.

Edited by Anddenex
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Anddenex said:

I can see you didn't read the quotes. If you read the quotes you would see I mentioned three parts: authority, keys, and power. We all hold the same priesthood. We all do not have the same keys to act and perform specific responsibilities. We all do not share the same authority.

As I said your "/facepalm" is a sad irony.

This all started from Traveler's statement

Quote

For clarification for you and @mikbone Anyone ordained an Elder to the Melchizedek Priesthood has as much power and authority as the President or the First Presidency of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. 

The above statement is absurd.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, mikbone said:

This all started from Traveler's statement

The above statement is absurd.  

or clarification for you and @mikbone Anyone ordained an Elder to the Melchizedek Priesthood has as much ... and authority as the President or the First Presidency of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. 

True, I was responding to Vort's response with same authority, but yes it is absurd to think we have the same power. If this was where you focused, then we are in agreement, and our previous discussion is null.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ok Im an M.D. Im also a board certified orthopaedic surgeon.  I have general training in orthopaedics.  I dont have a fellowship in sports, spine, total joints, or hand surgery.

I have the authority and training to fix fractured bones.  I don't have hospital privileges to perform total knee joint replacements.  I cannot perform brain surgery.  I cannot perform complex hand surgeries.

There are legal requirements that define what I can and cannot do.

Your stake president can appoint bishops and make stake callings.  He has the authority to countersign your temple recommend that your bishop has signed.

There are keys of the priesthood that carry authority.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, mikbone said:

Authority is governed by the keys.

Please read this again carefully. Then think about what it means.

The authority of the Priesthood is governed by the keys of the Priesthood.

Does that say that key-holding Priesthood holders "have more Priesthood authority" than non-key-holding Priesthood holders?

No.

Does it say that key-holding Priesthood holders govern the use of Priesthood authority by other, including non-key-holding, Priesthood holders?

Bingo.

This is all very clear and very elementary. Eighteen-year-old high school boys are taught this, or should be, when they receive the Melchizedek Priesthood. Again, you should review Elder McConkie's 1975 talk -- very basic, very elementary, very clear.

I concede that some confusion may result in the overloading of the word authority. When we speak of Priesthood authority, we are talking about the authority or authorization to act in a Priesthood capacity. All who hold the Priesthood and are worthy to exercise it have this authorization. That is what it means to hold the Priesthood. But of course, that authorization is controlled by Priesthood keys, which are given to certain Priesthood leaders. When a bishop is released from his calling, he no longer exercises the keys of that office. But he doesn't have "less Priesthood authority".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, mikbone said:

Without the consent of your bishop you cannot give your child a name and a blessing, baptize, confirm, confer or ordain the priesthood. You cannot perform temple sealings without the keys.  You cannot even bless the sacrament at home for your own family without the consent of your bishop.

Wow. It almost sounds like, well, you know, like Priesthood authority is governed by Priesthood holders who hold Priesthood keys. Whoda thunk?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

D&C 20  63 The elders are to receive their licenses from other elders, by vote of the church to which they belong, or from the conferences.
 64 Each priest, teacher, or deacon, who is ordained by a priest, may take a certificate from him at the time, which certificate, when presented to an elder, shall entitle him to a license, which shall authorize him to perform the duties of his calling, or he may receive it from a conference.

 

The Prophet holds all the keys that reside on Earth.  He dispenses and recalls the keys at his discretions.

The keys that each priesthood holder retains determines his authority.

 

D&C 107:18 The power and authority of the higher, or Melchizedek Priesthood, is to hold the keys of all the spiritual blessings of the church--
19 To have the privilege of receiving the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven, to have the heavens opened unto them, to commune with the general assembly and church of the Firstborn, and to enjoy the communion and presence of God the Father, and Jesus the mediator of the new covenant.
20 The power and authority of the lesser, or Aaronic Priesthood, is to hold the keys of the ministering of angels, and to administer in outward ordinances, the letter of the gospel, the baptism of repentance for the remission of sins, agreeable to the covenants and commandments.

 

Edited by mikbone
Link to comment
Share on other sites

“Ultimately, all keys of the priesthood are held by the Lord Jesus Christ, whose priesthood it is. He is the one who determines what keys are delegated to mortals and how those keys will be used. We are accustomed to thinking that all keys of the priesthood were conferred on Joseph Smith in the Kirtland Temple, but the scripture states that all that was conferred there were “the keys of this dispensation” (D&C 110:16). At general conference many years ago, President Spencer W. Kimball reminded us that there are other priesthood keys that have not been given to man on the earth, including the keys of creation and resurrection”

 

“Whoever exercises priesthood authority should forget about their rights and concentrate on their responsibilities.”

 

Dallin H Oaks  The Keys and Authority of the Priesthood  April 2014

Edited by mikbone
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Vort said:

Wow. It almost sounds like, well, you know, like Priesthood authority is governed by Priesthood holders who hold Priesthood keys. Whoda thunk?

"Whoda thunk ?"...? h0323.gif Seattle street gang language...?

Edited by OnePassenger
Link to comment
Share on other sites

33 minutes ago, AlbanyNYLDS said:

I have been a longtime lurker, but feel compelled to register for an account to simply write this: of COURSE Jesus was not married.  This is not up for debate and I can't imagine why any rational Latter-day Saint would dare engage himself in such frivolity.  Saying Jesus was married is about as insane as saying it's okay for couples to have sex the day before being sealed.

There is no evidence to support this psychotic theory.  None whatsoever.  I do not need to provide any proof or citations, because this truth is self-evident.  What are you going to claim next, that Heavenly Father was a drug dealer in His mortal trial?

All that being written, I can appreciate a good joke.  But if people give serious credibility to this, then that's a problem and it's blasphemous.

Why is it blasphemous?

Is there something inherently dirty about marriage, or women, or sex?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

35 minutes ago, AlbanyNYLDS said:

...of COURSE Jesus was not married...Saying Jesus was married is about as insane as saying it's okay for couples to have sex the day before being sealed...What are you going to claim next, that Heavenly Father was a drug dealer in His mortal trial?...But if people give serious credibility to this, then that's a problem and it's blasphemous.

Assuming you're not married, having sex the day before getting sealed is fornication, and thus sinful. Dealing illegal drugs is sinful.

How is marriage sinful?

How is it blasphemous to suppose Jesus might have been married and engaged in normal sexual relations with his wife?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, AlbanyNYLDS said:

Nice straw man, but you know the answer to that is in the negative.  What's "inherently dirty" is even joking about our Savior being married.  It simply did not happen.  This shouldn't even be a conversation, and as such, I will not be replying to anything further in this thread, because....Jesus....married?  You'd have to be on glue to believe that or even give it serious consideration.

And hey...you  keep working on that straw man.

I asked you about your use of a specific word—“blasphemous”.

You didn’t call the notion of a married Jesus  “unhelpful”.  You didn’t call it “fruitless”.  You didn’t call it “idle speculation”, or “distracting from the core issue”.  I may, perhaps, have agreed with any of those.

But you specifically called it “blasphemous”, which suggests you think there’s something inherently wrong with the notion of Jesus being married.  I’d like to know wherein you think the wrongfulness lies.  

Edited by Just_A_Guy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, AlbanyNYLDS said:

[1] I can't believe that this is even a debate, I have to wonder if I stumbled into the twilight zone, but I'm waiting for the pizza dude to get here, so I'll humor you.  Blasphemy is going against what is sacred.  Our Savior was here to fulfill the promise He made in the pre-existence, to atone for our sins.  The very notion that He would get married is laughable, because that would distract Him from His duty.

[2] Also, if he truly were married, as you people claim, this would be noted in the scriptures, and His supposed "wife" surely would have been there to see her husband's demise.  THAT would surely be canonized.  And if He got married, then where is His  marriage certificate?  Where are His children?  I haven't seen THOSE genealogical records.  Surely if He were married, there'd be descendants, and surely people would be shouting from the rooftops that they descend from our Savior, even Jesus Christ.  Where are they?  WHERE ARE THEY?

[3]I have to wonder if this thread is a joke, because no rational human being would for a moment think that our Savior would be married.  That's sick.

1.  Well, here at least is the beginning of a logical argument.  Or at least, an axiom:  that it is blasphemous to suggest Jesus did anything that wild have distracted Him from His duty.

Interesting.

I suppose you consider it blasphemous to suggest that Jesus ate?  Or that He slept?

2.  The list of things that isn’t noted in the scriptures, is staggering.  And have you noticed how there’s a roughly twenty-eight year black hole in the scriptural record of our Lord’s life?

Our entire religion was founded on the proposition that the available corpus of canon was not telling us the whole story about Jesus Christ.  

3.  So Parley Pratt, Mormonism’s foremost theologian, was not “rational”?  

Fascinating.  That’s the second time you’ve used that word to describe folks who think differently than you.  

I do not think it means what you think it means.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

39 minutes ago, AlbanyNYLDS said:

Blasphemy is going against what is sacred.  Our Savior was here to fulfill the promise He made in the pre-existence, to atone for our sins.  The very notion that He would get married is laughable, because that would distract Him from His duty.

Why? Marriage might well be the essence of atonement, the very thing that ultimately made it possible for Jesus to be the Savior. What rational evidence do you have to the contrary, other than your own personal conviction that marriage is a distraction to Godly things and somehow makes one unfit to bring people to God?

41 minutes ago, AlbanyNYLDS said:

Also, if He truly were married, as you people claim, this would be noted in the scriptures, and His supposed "wife" surely would have been there to see her husband's demise.  THAT would surely be canonized.  And yet, no lessons about His "marriage" in Primary, nor in EQ or RS.  Odd, that.

What do we know about Philip's wife? No mention. He must have been unmarried.

How about Paul's wife? No mention. He must have been unmarried.

How about Peter's? Oh, wait, we do know something about Peter's wife, because his mother-in-law's sickness was mentioned in passing. Outside of this, no specific mention is ever made of Peter being married. Not one other time, ever.

So are we to assume that Peter was married, but not any of the other apostles?

Surely you can see that the mere fact that some normal aspect of human life might not be mentioned is no kind of evidence that it didn't exist. That's like saying that Jesus couldn't have had a beard because, well, the scriptures don't say he did. Neither do they say he was clean-shaven, so that's out. Obviously, Jesus didn't have a face.

Arguing from silence is ridiculous. You are under no obligation to believe that Jesus was married, but you have neither the authority nor the insight to condemn those who don't share your opinion, especially as baseless an opinion as you have.

By the way, I'm pretty sure JAG didn't "claim that our Savior managed to get married without the same scripture that documented his crucifixion documented [sic] it." You might want to figure out who said what before you start throwing around criticisms.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, AlbanyNYLDS said:

I WILL condemn those who participate in this sort of talk, especially when the Church has come out and said that this is not doctrine.

Perhaps you will be so good as to point out who has claimed the idea of Christ being married as LDS doctrine.

2 minutes ago, AlbanyNYLDS said:

As such, I contend that anyone who supports this sick theory is preaching false doctrine.

Then you are wrong. Merely believing or supporting some idea is not preaching it, and certainly not attributing it to the Church.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, AlbanyNYLDS said:

Sigh.  This thread is like a trainwreck...I can't look away.  I WILL condemn those who participate in this sort of talk, especially when the Church has come out and said that this is not doctrine.  As such, I contend that anyone who supports this sick theory is preaching false doctrine.  I will "throw around criticisms" when the topic is poppycock.  I would expect you to do the same if I said Hitler was a Mormon, which frankly is less offensive a claim than Jesus being married.

"The belief that Christ was married has never been official church doctrine. It is neither sanctioned nor taught by the church. While it is true that a few church leaders in the mid-1800s expressed their opinions on the matter, it was not then, and is not now, church doctrine."-- Dale Bills, spokesman for the LDS Church (bold is my emphasis)

So, at this point, one could argue that, according to the LDS Church, anyone who is advocating for even the possibility of Christ being married, is furthering the spreading of false doctrine.  And now, at this point, I WILL be done with this thread, because I have defended the truth and because I value my temple recommend I will not engage in this false doctrine.  The FACT that Christ wasn't married needs no defense, because it's true.

Show me a reference where the Church has reversed its position and I'll be happy to further debate.  Until then, I will not put my TR in peril.

 

Are you aware of the indisputable fact that several early Church leaders taught that the Savior was — an now is — married? What’s so revolting and unacceptable about the idea that Christ may have obeyed his own law of eternal marriage, a law which unequivocally stipulates that men and women must be eternally married by the power of the priesthood before they can obtain the fulness of celestial glory? Do you think the Savior would be committing a sin if he obeyed the divine commandment to marry?

Edited by Jersey Boy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Albany

This following article might be helpful

https://rsc.byu.edu/archived/re-17-no-3-2016/doctrine-models-evaluate-types-and-sources-latter-day-saint-teachings

This website is not LDS sanctioned.

And unfortunately many of the topics here are of an esoteric nature.

Try not to bang your head against a wall.

Luckily we got conference this weekend!

Edited by mikbone
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, AlbanyNYLDS said:

Nice straw man, but you know the answer to that is in the negative.  What's "inherently dirty" is even joking about our Savior being married.  It simply did not happen.  This shouldn't even be a conversation, and as such, I will not be replying to anything further in this thread, because....Jesus....married?  You'd have to be on glue to believe that or even give it serious consideration.

And hey...you  keep working on that straw man.

Take your medicine. 🤠

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 hours ago, mikbone said:

From Dallin H. Oaks.  Attorney and First Councilor of the presidency  April 14, Conference

We have the same priesthood.

Authority is governed by the keys.

Power is dependent upon righteousness, faith, obedience, etc.

 

The keys of the priesthood are very important.  If you don't understand the keys of the priesthood, you don't understand the priesthood.

I like to think of it as similar to driving a car. Like the priesthood, a drivers license gives one the authority and power to legally operate a vehicle. A father and his teenage son may both have drivers licenses, and thus the same authority and power to operate the vehicle, but the father holds the keys to the car and may determine if or when the son may use the car.

Thanks, -Wade Englund- 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, AlbanyNYLDS said:

That's not in dispute, but I'm going with the Church spokesman, who clearly answers to the brethren.  This whole topic is not sanctioned by the Church, so as I value my TR and good standing, I will write that our Savior was NOT married.  I'm aware of what the early leaders taught, but that was then and this is now.  The CR is that Jesus was NOT married.  I'm trying to bring people back from the brink of apostasy, but if you insist on sincerely believing this pap, then I don't want to be you during your next TR interview.  I believe what my Church says for me to believe and I do not question it.

The leaders of the Church are now teaching as a certainty that Christ is not married? Are you sure? I thought they were offering no opinion and leaving the possibility open?

Let’s use logic and reason for a moment: If Christ is not now eternally married, how did he obtain the fulness of celestial glory when he teaches us, in no uncertain terms, that only those who obey the law of eternal marriage can obtain exaltation? Do you realize that in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints the very term “eternal life” means being married forever and having spirit offspring? Wouldn’t it be kind of strange and irregular if an unmarried Christ has somehow obtained the fulness of celestial glory while being separate and single forever? Read what he says for yourself...

19 And again, verily I say unto you, if a man marry a wife by my word, which is my law, and by the new and everlasting covenant, and it is sealed unto them by the Holy Spirit of promise, by him who is anointed, unto whom I have appointed this power and the keys of this priesthood; and it shall be said unto them—Ye shall come forth in the first resurrection; and if it be after the first resurrection, in the next resurrection; and shall inherit thrones, kingdoms, principalities, and powers, dominions, all heights and depths—then shall it be written in the Lamb's Book of Life, that he shall commit no murder whereby to shed innocent blood, and if ye abide in my covenant, and commit no murder whereby to shed innocent blood, it shall be done unto them in all things whatsoever my servant hath put upon them, in time, and through all eternity; and shall be of full force when they are out of the world; and they shall pass by the angels, and the gods, which are set there, to their exaltation and glory in all things, as hath been sealed upon their heads, which glory shall be a fulness and a continuation of the seeds forever and ever.

    20 Then shall they be gods, because they have no end; therefore shall they be from everlasting to everlasting, because they continue; then shall they be above all, because all things are subject unto them. Then shall they be gods, because they have all power, and the angels are subject unto them.

    21 Verily, verily, I say unto you, except ye abide my law ye cannot attain to this glory.(D&C 132)

Edited by Jersey Boy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, AlbanyNYLDS said:

Let me get this straight, so everyone can understand: you are making fun of the mentally ill, am I correct?  Of course I am, by your own words. I am not mentally ill myself, but I do not appreciate you mocking those with mental illnesses.  Shame on you.

I'm only mocking on you, not mentally ill ones in general. Guess you know it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Quote

The belief that Christ was married has never been official church doctrine. It is neither sanctioned nor taught by the church. While it is true that a few church leaders in the mid-1800s expressed their opinions on the matter, it was not then, and is not now, church doctrine."-- Dale Bills, spokesman for the LDS Church (bold is my emphasis)

This is true, but the belief that Jesus was not married has also never been official church doctrine.  There is no official doctrine either way.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • pam unfeatured this topic

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share