Was Jesus married?

[Jeny]

it means: my tower.

Jesus called her: Mary, my tower. Or: Mary, my piller of strength!! She was obviously VERY special to him...hmmmm.

[Doctor Steuss]

Jesus called her: Mary, my tower. Or: Mary, my piller of strength!! She was obviously VERY special to him...hmmmm.

Possibly. It is still speculative (i.e. it requires the assumption that "Magdeline" was derived from migdal). I wouldn't go espousing this in GD class or anything like that. It's just the heretical Gospel of Steuss.

[Jeny]

Possibly. It is still speculative (i.e. it requires the assumption that "Magdeline" was derived from migdal). I wouldn't go espousing this in GD class or anything like that. It's just the heretical Gospel of Steuss.

Nah...I am not going to teach it or anything...just ponder these things in my heart...and people wonder why I love Hebrew so much!!!!!!

[outofcadence]

...Whether Jesus was or was not married is not important to our salvation....

But how he was married may be... Didn't one of the early prophets state that the only way to enter the highest kingdom was to accept the doctrine of polygamy and those who refused would be dammed? Since the church changed the doctrine, are those early members who did not accept the doctrine now allowed??? I am confused....

[HiJolly]

But how he was married may be... Didn't one of the early prophets state that the only way to enter the highest kingdom was to accept the doctrine of polygamy and those who refused would be dammed? Since the church changed the doctrine, are those early members who did not accept the doctrine now allowed??? I am confused....

Well, I have no idea. But I want to say something, so I'll relate a family story... (Isn't that how it works with old people?)

I have a great-uncle who was the leader of the Church in the polygamist Mexican colonies (Pacheco, Juarez, Diaz, etc.) and he was not a polygamist. He heard this principle preached time after time, and never became a polygamist. Later, be became a councilor in the First Presidency of the Church under President Heber J. Grant. When asked why he never became a polygamist, he said that he never felt inspired by God that it was right for him to do.

And obviously his approach didn't hurt him in church leadership, not in the least. FYI, three out of my four great-grandparents's marriages were polygamous. One was a fantastic success, two were pretty good. My last relative who was a church-approved polygamist died in 1976, when I was a teenager. A great-great-grandparent got carried away in his practices of polygamy and had to be ex'd. (just for background)

HiJolly

[No Touch]

Just to throw my own 2 cents in:

Despite it not really being LDS doctrine, I do, being LDS, believe that Jesus Christ was married, for many of the same reasons mentioned earlier. Basically, it was pretty much standard practice for every Jewish man to be married. It would be even moreso expected for a religious leader. Jesus is even called Rabbi at times, and in his time one could not be a Rabbi if they did not have at least 1 wife. One has to logically assume that if he was a single man in his 30s acting as a religious authority, it would be scandalous and something his enemies would use to discredit him. And niether his enemies in the priestly class in the Bible or sbsequent generations of anti-Christian authors in the time before Constantine make such an assertion to discredit Christ (to the best of my knowledge).

[outofcadence]

I have a great-uncle who was the leader of the Church in the polygamist Mexican colonies (Pacheco, Juarez, Diaz, etc.) and he was not a polygamist. He heard this principle preached time after time, and never became a polygamist. Later, be became a councilor in the First Presidency of the Church under President Heber J. Grant. When asked why he never became a polygamist, he said that he never felt inspired by God that it was right for him to do.

And obviously his approach didn't hurt him in church leadership, not in the least. FYI, three out of my four great-grandparents's marriages were polygamous. One was a fantastic success, two were pretty good. My last relative who was a church-approved polygamist died in 1976, when I was a teenager. A great-great-grandparent got carried away in his practices of polygamy and had to be ex'd. (just for background)

HiJolly

HiJolly,

Good for your great-uncle, he followed what he thought was right. However, since he did not accept the teachings at the time, he would not gain the full blessings, despite of his leadership positions. But as of the current doctrine today, is he 'grandfathered'? (excuse the pun)

Doesn't that mean that we should always pray and search in our own hearts as to the truth of anything? Even if it disagrees with what a prophet states as the truth?

Cadence,

It is the LDS position that God alone is qualified to judge another person's salvation. It is not your place to decide, nor to speculate upon what blessings HiJolly's Great-uncle may or may not receive.

We also beleive in continuing revelation- our understanding of doctrine is not yet perfect and in all likelihood will not be on this side of the Millenium. That is why we have prophets- to help guide us toward perfect understanding of the Gospel. We are judged by the light we receive and our ability to live up to the law as we understand it. We will be judged with mercy and with understanding, not pharisiacal games designed to undermine faith and subvert truth.

Please stop playing games trying to pit the early leadership of the Church against the current (or future). You've already had one inflammatory post deleted. This will be your last warning.

Your final point, however, is very nearly correct. We are each tasked with sustaining our Prophets and seeking the truth for ourselves through, prayer, fasting, and personal revelation.

Honos

[larsumms]

I believe that Jesus was married and that it was his wedding at Cana...That is why his mother came to HIM about the wine. When he said, "mine hour is not yet come" he was telling her that it wasn't time for him to reveal who he REALLY was. He preformed the miracle because it was his wedding. I have no proof of these thoughts, but they make sense to me as I understand Celestial law. Also, when Mary came to him at the sepulchre...she wanted to hug him...he wouldn't let her touch him then...she was his wife. I believe that in my heart...Again, not doctrine...but I still believe it in my heart.

She came to him about the lack of wine because the supply of the wine at a wedding is the responsibility of the groom

[Pegtagatha]

Kind of like The Divci Code? The Divci Code proves that Mary Magdalene was married to Jesus.

[Gaia]

Wow! This is freaky!! I never heard of such a thing!! If Jesus was married, why wasn't that fact in the Bible? Why would he hide it? And why are Mormons so bent on this poligamy idea? I have some good questions to ask those missionaries today, at least!!

GAIA:

Hi There, Purple --

It may be important to note that this is not an official doctrine of the LDS Church; It is instead based on:

a) implications gathered from various doctrines and scriptures -

For example, D&C 132 says that one must receive the "New and Everlasting Covenant of Marriage' in order to be exalted;

and

B) Speculation

OR

c) Revelation -- from various leaders.

The idea that some people have -- that if Jesus was married, it would have been expressly stated in the bible -- is not necessarily valid.

Marriage at that era and in that culture was virtually a requirement for a man of his age; even more so for one who was acknowledged as a Rabbi. And it should be noted that even the Sanhedrin - those sticklers for rules and regulations -- did not dispute his being called "Rabbi" on that basis --

So, many feel it's just the opposite: If he had NOT been married, it would have been so unusual and remarkable, that would have been mentioned; but as it was, the idea that he WAS married would have been so "normal" and expected, that there would not have been reason to remark about it.

I hope that helps --

Blessings --

~Gaia

[Gaia]

I can add one more...G-d wants us to have faith.

GAIA:

I think it's also relevant to remember that LDS are promised MUCH more scripture and revelations, as time goes on --

both in terms of the "Sealed Portion" of the Book of Mormon, and in terms of ONGOING Revelation:

Joel 2:28

28 ¶ And it shall come to pass afterward, that I will pour out my spirit upon all flesh; and your sons and your daughters shall prophesy, your old men shall dream dreams, your young men shall see visions:29 And also upon the servants and upon the handmaids in those days will I pour out my spirit.

I think we should therefore AVOID assuming that just because something is not currently known, it is therefore never to be known or revealed --

Blessings -

~Gaia

[ztodd]

If God had permited Grant or Hyde to live 180 years, would their testimony be any less viable. No one has ever stood and rebuked them. This was the word and mind of the Lord. It should not be a stretch to accept.

Just because it has not been spoken of much for many years doesn't make it any less "official doctrine".

The Journal of Discourses is not a Holy Grail book. It is a compilation of talks primarily given to the membership of the church during semi-annual conferences - presided over just as they are today - by a living prophet.

My ancestors attended these meetings. Their testimony is just as sound as the prophets.

So, in too many words, what I am saying is that if you are a believing Mormon, yes, Jesus was married. Apostles of the living God in this Last Dispensation testified to it.

Official church doctrine only includes the standard works, official declarations and proclamations, and the Articles of Faith.

"Not every statement made by a Church leader, past or present, necessarily constitutes doctrine. A single statement made by a single leader on a single occasion often represents a personal, though well-considered, opinion, but is not meant to be officially binding for the whole Church. With divine inspiration, the First Presidency (the prophet and his two counselors) and the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles (the second-highest governing body of the Church) counsel together to establish doctrine that is consistently proclaimed in official Church publications. This doctrine resides in the four “standard works” of scripture (the Holy Bible, the Book of Mormon, the Doctrine and Covenants and the Pearl of Great Price), official declarations and proclamations, and the Articles of Faith. Isolated statements are often taken out of context, leaving their original meaning distorted. "

http://www.lds.org/ldsnewsroom/v/index.jsp...0004e94610aRCRD

[MistyAnn]

I don't believe that Jesus was married. He knew what was going to happen to him. I don't think he would want to leave behind a wife and kids. Anyway that wasn't his purpose for coming here, his purpose on earth was much greater than any of us.

[emeliza]

Jesus is even called Rabbi at times, and in his time one could not be a Rabbi if they did not have at least 1 wife. One has to logically assume that if he was a single man in his 30s acting as a religious authority, it would be scandalous and something his enemies would use to discredit him.

Do you have a reference that Rabbi at that time meant they were married? I don't doubt you, just want a reference. It doesn't mean that today to my knowledge. Just teacher within the Jewish faith, generally a leader in the religion.....

[HiJolly]

Do you have a reference that Rabbi at that time meant they were married? I don't doubt you, just want a reference. It doesn't mean that today to my knowledge. Just teacher within the Jewish faith, generally a leader in the religion.....

I have also heard that one could not be a Rabbi without being married.

I also heard that the Jewish mystics couldn't study the mysteries unless they were over the age of 40 and married.

HiJolly

[LdsNana]

Hello All!

I appreciate all of the wonderfull insights and opinions that have been shared by all. I personally believe that the prophet Joseph Smith has given the most conclusive statement that can be made, if applied to this subject, when he said:

"If a man gets a fullness of the priesthood of God he has to get it in the same way that Jesus Christ obtained it, and that was by keeping all of the commandments and obeying all the ordinances of the house of the Lord. (italics added)

(Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, JFS)

We believe that Jesus Christ lived a perfect life, thereby setting a perfect example for each one of us to FOLLOW. When he invites us personally to "Come follow me", He does so by inviting us to do this through the receiving of His Holy Spirit. The Gift of the Holy Ghost leads us into all truth IF we receive Him.

As we study the scriptures deeply with His Spirit as our guide, we will see these truths for ourselves without any confusion at all. If you have not read the TPJS as yet, I would recommend it highly. As well as The Lectures on Faith.

tdmg,

gvr:-)

[Jaime]

We are supposed to be following living prophets not dead General Authorities.

I think that the general rule of thumb is that we go by what was taught by past general authorities unless corrected and/or changed by a subsequent prophet. Not that we HAVE to believe anything that isn't "official".

[LdsNana]

I think that the general rule of thumb is that we go by what was taught by past general authorities unless corrected and/or changed by a subsequent prophet. Not that we HAVE to believe anything that isn't "official".

I do not believe we have a "general rule of thumb" when we quote directly from Joseph Smith who was the Prophet for the dispensation of the fullness of times, who was also quoted saying these same words by multitudes of prophets that suceeded him. This is NOT just any quote, this is the saving doctrine of the church as taught by the man where, in our canonized scriptures it is said "that he has done more, save Jesus only for the salvation of man".

The Church Educational System has a policy that anything reprinted from 1969 in a church publication may be used to teach in CES, ie Seminary, etc... This quote has been reprinted numerous times in official manuals of the church before and since then and I will go out on a limb and say it is printed in the new manual for 2008... as this is what we teach unto ALL, that they too must receive ALL of the Temple ordinances, and to WHO then set the perfect example Himself.

If we could not preach this truth, then how could we possibly then teach and consider it a requirement? Joseph Smith knew he was not making an idle statement here, and every reprint of it remains veiled to those that choose it to be so, and this is intended just that way as all great truths are...

In submitting this quote my hope is that truth and reason will put away confusion and bring added light to the question posted.

tdmg,

gVr

"If a man gets a fullness of the priesthood of God he has to get it in the same way that Jesus Christ obtained it, and that was by keeping all of the commandments and obeying all the ordinances of the house of the Lord. (italics added)

(Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, JFS)

ps. I happen to love those dead/living prophets who spoke by the power of the spirit who continues to live and will continue to bear witness to ALL TRUTH... and to all the honest seekers of all truth wherever it is to be found and willingly received... to them he will also give more... until the perfect DAY!

[Jaime]

You'll have to forgive me gvr, but I don't really understand how your post was even related to mine. If anything it would simply back my criticism of cybermo's strange assertion that we don't follow the teachings of dead prophets and apostles, only living ones.

[MorningStar]

I don't believe that Jesus was married. He knew what was going to happen to him. I don't think he would want to leave behind a wife and kids. Anyway that wasn't his purpose for coming here, his purpose on earth was much greater than any of us.

I've thought of that too, but then I think of the many women on this earth who have had to raise their children practically alone and the men who had to leave for a mission, war, etc. Very difficult for their wives, but they weren't saved from going through that trial. There's nothing quite as rewarding as having a family and I think most people would do it all again even if they knew some kind of tragedy would happen to them.

[LdsNana]

You'll have to forgive me gvr, but I don't really understand how your post was even related to mine. If anything it would simply back my criticism of cybermo's strange assertion that we don't follow the teachings of dead prophets and apostles, only living ones.

Jamie,

My apologies if I misunderstood your previous exchange with another poster... as it appeared to me to be an independent quote, with comments of your own.

Nice to know "we" are on the same page. :) At least as far as who we consider to be a credible resource for doctrine this time around anyway.

I am still learning the ropes around here, so I hope you will forgive me this one anyway?