Guest Gomezaddams51

Was Jesus married

Recommended Posts

2 hours ago, Jonah said:

Thanks. I read the FairMormon article.  It said:  Answer: We do not know anything about Jesus Christ being
married. The Church has no authoritative declaration on the subject.

In an older General Conference sermon,  Jesus was said to have been married at Cana and he had
several wives.

  https://scriptures.byu.edu/jod/pdf/JoD02/JoD02.pdf

THE JUDGMENTS OF GOD ON THE UNITED STATES—THE SAINTS AND THE WORLD. A SERMON BY PRESIDENT 
ORSON HYDE, DELIVERED IN THE TABERNACLE, GREAT SALT LAKE CITY, MARCH 18, 1855.

I discover that some of the Eastern papers represent me as a great blasphemer, because 
I said, in my lecture on Marriage, at our last Conference, that Jesus Christ was married 
at Cana of Galilee, that Mary, Martha, and others were his wives, and that he begat 
children.

  http://www.eldenwatson.net/1850s.htm#15

The paragraph starts with "Let us see what Abraham's works were. Abraham obtained promises"
The collateral teaching seems to be Heavenly Father has multiple wives too.

Dude, what is your problem? Do you seriously have nothing better to do with your time? Get a life and grow up already.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, scottyg said:

Dude, what is your problem? Do you seriously have nothing better to do with your time? Get a life and grow up already.

This is his life. Why he continues participating here is as unknown to me as why he is allowed to continue participating here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/29/2020 at 4:45 AM, laronius said:

The premortal Jesus Christ and the Holy Ghost were/are also "Gods," not THE God but Gods nonetheless. It is a title that can also be used as a name. Is there something upon which you are basing your definition of God as Father or is that just your personal belief? I've never tried to define it before so I'm just curious.

My definition of God is based entirely on my understanding of what the prophets and the scriptures have taught about him. Their preaching of devotion toward God and fear of Him is that such devotions are paid to a divine Individual, a Being Whom we worship as Father. When we speak of God (in the capital-G sense), we are talking about an All-Powerful Creator, and not about President So-and-so.

In my view, we dismiss the majesty of God and expose others, Latter-day Saints and non-Latter-day Saints alike, to confusion when we make unfounded, ascriptural statements such as "God is a title".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Jonah said:

Thanks. I read the FairMormon article.  It said:  Answer: We do not know anything about Jesus Christ being
married. The Church has no authoritative declaration on the subject.

In an older General Conference sermon,  Jesus was said to have been married at Cana and he had
several wives.

  https://scriptures.byu.edu/jod/pdf/JoD02/JoD02.pdf

THE JUDGMENTS OF GOD ON THE UNITED STATES—THE SAINTS AND THE WORLD. A SERMON BY PRESIDENT 
ORSON HYDE, DELIVERED IN THE TABERNACLE, GREAT SALT LAKE CITY, MARCH 18, 1855.

I discover that some of the Eastern papers represent me as a great blasphemer, because 
I said, in my lecture on Marriage, at our last Conference, that Jesus Christ was married 
at Cana of Galilee, that Mary, Martha, and others were his wives, and that he begat 
children.

  http://www.eldenwatson.net/1850s.htm#15

The paragraph starts with "Let us see what Abraham's works were. Abraham obtained promises"
The collateral teaching seems to be Heavenly Father has multiple wives too.

An interesting take you have, BUT, essentially, I don't see anything wrong with what you wrote.

Yes, there are those that have taught that the Lord in his mortal ministry was married.  One of the ideas behind this was that the Lord would have fulfilled every covenant and performed every ordinance (if just as example of what we should do and follow) that we are commanded to do.  For example, the most famous is his baptism in the River Jordan.

If we follow through with that Logic, this would also mean that as marriage is an ordinance (and a sacrament for Catholics...though Catholics believe differently on whether the Lord would do such things in many instances) that the Lord would have done all things that are required of us, especially in what we consider an ordinance. 

However, as it is NOT spelled out, it is left officially as conjecture on our part today regarding how the Church views it, whether that is your average member such as I conjecturing, or even the words of someone as Orson Hyde.  In this light, the church would probably say that Orson Hyde was expressing his opinion, much as they could say I also have expressed an opinion (though on this, right now, the above may more be an idea rather than a set opinion of mine).  Neither could really be considered the official doctrine of the church today as far as I am aware.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Vort said:

My definition of God is based entirely on my understanding of what the prophets and the scriptures have taught about him. Their preaching of devotion toward God and fear of Him is that such devotions are paid to a divine Individual, a Being Whom we worship as Father. When we speak of God (in the capital-G sense), we are talking about an All-Powerful Creator, and not about President So-and-so.

In my view, we dismiss the majesty of God and expose others, Latter-day Saints and non-Latter-day Saints alike, to confusion when we make unfounded, ascriptural statements such as "God is a title".

I guess I don't understand why you are taking issue with this. Here is the definition of title:

"a name that describes someone's position or job"

To me that is accurate and in no way minimizes who He is or what the name/title stands for. I think I get your point in that when used without a clarifier it generally refers to our Father in Heaven but my initial response was in regards to it being applied to the Holy Ghost and as such I was making the distinction between the multiple Beings who use that name/title. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, laronius said:

I guess I don't understand why you are taking issue with this. Here is the definition of title:

"a name that describes someone's position or job"

To me that is accurate and in no way minimizes who He is or what the name/title stands for. I think I get your point in that when used without a clarifier it generally refers to our Father in Heaven but my initial response was in regards to it being applied to the Holy Ghost and as such I was making the distinction between the multiple Beings who use that name/title. 

"God" is not simply the Father's "position or job". "God" describes who and what he is in the deepest and most intimate sense.

FWIW, I was not seeking to criticize you. I was seeking to express my distaste for the idea, distressingly common among Latter-day Saints, that the Father is "a God", as if "God" is merely a descriptive title like "President" or "prime minister", and that there are perhaps dozens or hundreds of them running around.

Edited by Vort

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Vort said:

"God" is not simply the Father's "position or job". "God" describes who and what he is in the deepest and most intimate sense.

FWIW, I was not seeking to criticize you. I was seeking to express my distaste for the idea, distressingly common among Latter-day Saints, that the Father is "a God", as if "God" is merely a descriptive title like "President" or "prime minister", and that there are perhaps dozens or hundreds of them running around.

I totally agree that it's not just a position or job but I think there is a distinction to be made between the use of "God" as a personal reference to our Heavenly Father and when describing the position held by a member of the Godhead. 

And I wasn't taking your comments personally, just seeking clarification. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, Vort said:

... that there are perhaps dozens or hundreds of them running around.

Maybe not yet, but hopefully there will be more than hundreds.

 

Quote

 

19 And again, verily I say unto you, if a man amarry a wife by my word, which is my law, and by the bnew and everlasting covenant, and it is csealed unto them by the Holy Spirit of dpromise, by him who is anointed, unto whom I have appointed this power and the ekeys 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 fthrones, kingdoms, principalities, and powers, dominions, all heights and depths—then shall it be written in the Lamb’s gBook of Life, that he shall commit no hmurder whereby to shed innocent iblood, 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 jexaltation and glory in all things, as hath been sealed upon their heads, which glory shall be a fulness and a continuation of the kseeds forever and ever.

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

 

 

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/scriptures/dc-testament/dc/132?lang=eng

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It has always been interesting to me what is assumed about G-d among many religious thinkers.  There is a lot of terms and conditions used in scripture - all of which points to the possibility that both Jesus and his Father are personally involved in intimate marriage covenants and relationships.  For example, in the ancient Israel (Jewish) society it was socially unacceptable for a man to NOT be married (man is not without the woman nor is the woman without the man in the L-rd).  The title of Rabbi in that ancient society required a person be married.  Jesus was often called Rabbi by the Pharisees that were using every means at their disposal to discredit Jesus.  Had he not been married they would have leveraged that unusual condition to discredit him.

We live in a  life, culture and society that is currently discrediting the sacred marriage covenant.  Sadly many religions have positioned their understanding of G-d in such a manner to debase the sacred marriage relationship as something ung-dly and not divine.  Despite all the nonsense arguments concerning the marriage of Jesus - I have never see any creditable evidence that Jesus was not married.  You would think that if this most unnormal and unnatural condition was a necessity to qualify Jesus for being the Messiah - that there would be something in scripture to justify it.

 

The Traveler

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/28/2020 at 2:02 PM, Jane_Doe said:

@Jonah, you are Catholic, correct?  Is it correct for me to approach Catholic doctrine under the assumption that every single statement made by every single Pope and Cardinal as if it were automatically infallible "Thus saith the Lord"?  Or is there some other thing that should be taken into account (like Ex Cathedra or Apostolic Council statements)?

Hi Jane,

Yes, I am Catholic.  I believe that everything the Pope says is true or false, but since he is our leader, I
accept everything he says as the truth, no matter the environment.  That is, it doesn't matter to me if he
says it as his opinion, a teaching, or something more official like Ex Cathedra).  As for lower-level-in-
hierarchy priests or cardinals, the principle is the same - it is either true or false.  If their teaching is
false, then I am either purposely or unintentionally being mislead.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/28/2020 at 2:48 PM, scottyg said:

Dude, what is your problem? Do you seriously have nothing better to do with your time? Get a life and grow up already.

Is there a problem with quoting what a former Apostle taught in either a General Conference or a 
canonical record?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/28/2020 at 9:52 PM, JohnsonJones said:

An interesting take you have, BUT, essentially, I don't see anything wrong with what you wrote.

Thanks JohnsonJones,

I did not quote it as a matter of it being right or wrong.  Latter-day Saints at the conference
had to make up their own mind as to whether they would accept what he was saying was
true or not.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Jonah said:

Hi Jane,

Yes, I am Catholic.  I believe that everything the Pope says is true or false, but since he is our leader, I
accept everything he says as the truth, no matter the environment.  That is, it doesn't matter to me if he
says it as his opinion, a teaching, or something more official like Ex Cathedra).  As for lower-level-in-
hierarchy priests or cardinals, the principle is the same - it is either true or false.  If their teaching is
false, then I am either purposely or unintentionally being mislead.

Ah.  What you are saying here seems radically different then the Catholicism I learned while intensively studying the faith for many months (from Catholic people themselves, Catholic sources, etc).  I'm curious as to how you would respond to some .... colorful... quotes from Popes over the years.  

2 minutes ago, Jonah said:

Thanks JohnsonJones,

I did not quote it as a matter of it being right or wrong.  Latter-day Saints at the conference
had to make up their own mind as to whether they would accept what he was saying was
true or not.

Critical note: LDS Christians do not consider every thing said from a  church leader to be automatically "Thus Saith the Lord".  Your question here is based your erroneous assumption that LDS Christians do.  

Edited by Jane_Doe

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Jane_Doe said:

I'm curious as to how you would respond to some .... colorful... quotes from Popes over the years.

With hesitant and delicate fashion...  For me it was difficult to accept the teaching of Mary's perpetual
virginity and her assumption into heaven.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Jonah said:

With hesitant and delicate fashion...  For me it was difficult to accept the teaching of Mary's perpetual
virginity and her assumption into heaven.

The Marian docterines at least have a Ex Cathedra backing.  And current Pope Francis can be ... different than others.  But during the Middle Ages esspecailly there was some VERY .... colorful... behavior Roman leadership.  

Rather than be negative and drag out other people's dirty laundry, I'll ask things this way: is everything a Pope or Cardinal says is automatically infallible, what is the purpose of Ex Cathedra or Apostolic Councils?  

Edited by Jane_Doe
Adding more thoughts.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Jane_Doe said:

The Marian docterines at least have a Ex Cathedra backing.  And current Pope Francis can be ... different than others.  But during the Middle Ages esspecailly there was some VERY .... colorful... behavior Roman leadership.  

I know. A friend of mine gave me a book by Jack Chick called "Smokescreens" detailing some
more recent history.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Jonah said:

Hi Jane,

Yes, I am Catholic.  I believe that everything the Pope says is true or false, but since he is our leader, I
accept everything he says as the truth, no matter the environment.  That is, it doesn't matter to me if he
says it as his opinion, a teaching, or something more official like Ex Cathedra).  As for lower-level-in-
hierarchy priests or cardinals, the principle is the same - it is either true or false.  If their teaching is
false, then I am either purposely or unintentionally being mislead.

As a scientist, what any individual comes up with as a belief means very little to me - I am much more interested in why they believe something to be true.  I have two questions for you:

#1. Why are you Catholic - specifically what lengths have you gone through so that you identify as Catholic - specifically what empirical evidence and/or spiritual revelation.

#2.  Since you have conformed Catholicism at "the Truth" - why do you intensively study other faiths?

 

Thanks

 

The Traveler

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Jonah said:

I know. A friend of mine gave me a book by Jack Chick called "Smokescreens" detailing some
more recent history.

Oh, Jack Chick stuff is complete garbage, full of nothing by loaded "gotcha" questions based on bad foundations (much like the Pharisees questions).

Shall we both avoid such "gotcha" questions and instead strive to fully and honestly understand each other's faiths? 

Edited by Jane_Doe

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Jonah said:

Is there a problem with quoting what a former Apostle taught in either a General Conference or a 
canonical record?

Nope, but there are 2 problems with your failed rebuttal. First, you are not quoting in proper context, and your aim is not to build faith, but to tear it down and sow contention. Second, the "journal of discourses" is neither of those.

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/gospel-topics/journal-of-discourses?lang=eng

See below for your other statement...but this has been told to you many times, and fallen on deaf and hypocritical ears.

https://newsroom.churchofjesuschrist.org/article/approaching-mormon-doctrine

You do realize that no one here takes you seriously right? So why are you here? You have never given anyone an honest answer to that. You are "studying our faith", "asking honest questions"...those are blatant lies that are obvious to all. Your pitiful axe to grind is almost as sad as your pathetically failed attempts to make us question our faith. You only harm and embarrass yourself by being here in the manner that you are. Personally, I doubt you are even a faithful Catholic. One who is would not spend their days badgering those of other faiths. The Catholics that I know are comfortable in their religion, and do not need to constantly validate themselves due to having weak faith and an unstable foundation. As I said before, grow up and get a life. Hopefully you can get over whatever obvious and deep seated issues you have.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/28/2020 at 5:05 AM, Guest Gomezaddams51 said:

Now according to what I remember about the church teachings, we are supposed to get married here to be able to progress and go on to the highest kingdom.  So if Jesus was supposed to "show us the way" then he would have to get married as part of "the way".  Being a Demi-God shouldn't exclude Jesus from having to follow the "Plan".  God seems to be a stickler for following the rules so it seems natural that he would not include an escape clause for his son.

Have you checked the Bethlehem and/or Jersusalem birth, deaths and marriage records for circa AD 10 - AD33?  :) I'm not sure if they would be in Latin or Aramaic. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/30/2020 at 8:13 PM, askandanswer said:

Have you checked the Bethlehem and/or Jersusalem birth, deaths and marriage records for circa AD 10 - AD33?  :) I'm not sure if they would be in Latin or Aramaic. 

And if you do find it, can you clean up the family search entries? I think we have some duplicates.

https://www.familysearch.org/search/family-trees/results?q.birthLikePlace=Bethlehem&q.givenName=Jesus

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/30/2020 at 12:52 PM, Jane_Doe said:

Oh, Jack Chick stuff is complete garbage, full of nothing by loaded "gotcha" questions based on bad foundations (much like the Pharisees questions).

I think he may have started with good intentions but he ended with poor annotations.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/30/2020 at 12:47 PM, Traveler said:

As a scientist, what any individual comes up with as a belief means very little to me - I am much more interested in why they believe something to be true.  I have two questions for you:

#1. Why are you Catholic - specifically what lengths have you gone through so that you identify as Catholic - specifically what empirical evidence and/or spiritual revelation.

#2.  Since you have conformed Catholicism at "the Truth" - why do you intensively study other faiths?

 

Thanks

 

The Traveler

I was born in a Catholic family and remained such.  I know that the Catholic Church
teaches it is the only true church, but I believe the Body of Christ includes members
of various Christian faiths - who worship the true God.  I don't hold this view of JWs
since they teach Jesus is Michael the Archangel. As for other faiths (Islam, Buddhism,
etc), I also study them to learn their beliefs.  They hold critical views of why I believe
Jesus is God but that is understandable because they don't believe he is the way, the
truth, and the life or the only way to salvation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/30/2020 at 10:28 AM, Jonah said:

Hi Jane,

Yes, I am Catholic.  I believe that everything the Pope says is true or false, but since he is our leader, I
accept everything he says as the truth, no matter the environment.  That is, it doesn't matter to me if he
says it as his opinion, a teaching, or something more official like Ex Cathedra).  As for lower-level-in-
hierarchy priests or cardinals, the principle is the same - it is either true or false.  If their teaching is
false, then I am either purposely or unintentionally being mislead.

Just to be sure - Do you believe that the Papal declaration that Charlemagne is a "Defender of the Faith" is the truth of how those that disagree with the Catholic religion ought to be treated?

 

The Traveler 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now