Do LDS Believe Jesus Was Married?

[amgid]

majick275:

I’m not so sure that Jesus marriage, etc. is NOT current LDS doctriNephi Previous statements by BY that aren’t doctrine have been “corrected” by later prophets. (Adam-God, etc.) This is a teaching that to the best of my knowledge has never been refuted by later LDS prophets. It just isn’t talked about much anymore.

My understanding is that the belief that Jesus was married is not LDS doctrine. There are no scriptural indications that He was, either in the Bible, or in LDS scripture. As far as His divinity is concerned, both the Bible and the LDS scripture affirm that He was fully divine and the God of the universe before He was born on earth as a mortal:

2 Nephi 11:

7 For if there be no Christ there be no God; and if there be no God we are not, for there could have been no creation. But there is a God, and he is Christ, and he cometh in the fulness of his own time.

2 Nephi 26:

12 And as I spake concerning the convincing of the Jews, that Jesus is the very Christ, it must needs be that the Gentiles be convinced also that Jesus is the Christ, the Eternal God;

Mosiah 3:

5 For behold, the time cometh, and is not far distant, that with power, the Lord Omnipotent who reigneth, who was, and is from all eternity to all eternity, shall come down from heaven among the children of men, and shall dwell in a tabernacle of clay, and shall go forth amongst men, working mighty miracles, such as healing the sick, raising the dead, causing the lame to walk, the blind to receive their sight, and the deaf to hear, and curing all manner of diseases.

Mosiah 15:

1 And now Abinadi said unto them: I would that ye should understand that God himself shall come down among the children of men, and shall redeem his people.

3 Nephi 11:

14 Arise and come forth unto me, that ye may thrust your hands into my side, and also that ye may feel the prints of the nails in my hands and in my feet, that ye may know that I am the God of Israel, and the God of the whole earth, and have been slain for the sins of the world.

Ether 3:

18 And he ministered unto him even as he ministered unto the Nephites; and all this, that this man might know that he was God, because of the many great works which the Lord had showed unto him.

D&C 19:

18 Which suffering caused myself, even God, the greatest of all, to tremble because of pain, and to bleed at every pore, and to suffer both body and spirit–and would that I might not drink the bitter cup, and shrink–

(Continued in the next post…)

amgid

 

[amgid]

(Continued from the previous post…)

And as far as His having children is concerned, both the Bible and LDS scripture teach that all the faithful who accept the gospel and go to heaven become His children by virtue of His atoning sacrifice:

Isaiah 53:

10 Yet it pleased the Lord to bruise him; he hath put him to grief: when thou shalt make his soul an offering for sin, he shall see his seed, he shall prolong his days, and the pleasure of the Lord shall prosper in his hand.

11 He shall see of the travail of his soul, and shall be satisfied: by his knowledge shall my righteous servant justify many; for he shall bear their iniquities.

Mosiah 15:

10 And now I say unto you, who shall declare his generation? Behold, I say unto you, that when his soul has been made an offering for sin he shall see his seed. And now what say ye? And who shall be his seed?

11 Behold I say unto you, that whosoever has heard the words of the prophets, yea, all the holy prophets who have prophesied concerning the coming of the Lord–I say unto you, that all those who have hearkened unto their words, and believed that the Lord would redeem his people, and have looked forward to that day for a remission of their sins, I say unto you, that these are his seed, or they are the heirs of the kingdom of God.

12 For these are they whose sins he has borne; these are they for whom he has died, to redeem them from their transgressions. And now, are they not his seed?

13 Yea, and are not the prophets, every one that has opened his mouth to prophesy, that has not fallen into transgression, I mean all the holy prophets ever since the world began? I say unto you that they are his seed.

Mosiah 5:

7 And now, because of the covenant which ye have made ye shall be called the children of Christ, his sons, and his daughters; for behold, this day he hath spiritually begotten you; for ye say that your hearts are changed through faith on his name; therefore, ye are born of him and have become his sons and his daughters.

D&C 25:

1 Hearken unto the voice of the Lord your God, while I speak unto you, Emma Smith, my daughter; for verily I say unto you, all those who receive my gospel are sons and daughters in my kingdom.

amgid

 

[Robert_in_SD]

This is just an aside … and perhaps it is a good topic for another thread… But there seem to be two different kinds of LDS believers (and this is a very general statement). (1) There are “sola scriptura” LDS believers who take the position that if it’s not in the doctrinal writings - i.e. Bible, BoM, D&C, PoGP - then it’s not to be believed; and (2) those who accept not just the written doctrine but accept, as binding, the statements of the various prophets even where there are not express written doctrinal statements supporting those statements. The present topic - matrimony of Jesus - seems to be a good example of where some LDS say NO WAY while others seem to take the prophets’ statements to the contrary as binding on the faithful. Perhaps the LDS who come from a protestant background are more SS while those from other religions, like Catholicism, are more willing to submit to the teaching authority of the Prophets even where their statements exceed the doctrinal writings of the LDS church.

Sorry for the tangent, but I had to get this out. Anyone want to start a thread on this subject?

 

[majick275]

Previous LDS prophets have held that there is scriptural evidence of Jesus being married and cite the wedding at Canna as being the wedding of Christ.

They have also mentioned D&C 132 as requiring the sealing ordinance for exaltation and thus logically supporting this belief.

your scriptures on becoming the children of Christ I find interesting. Both Isaiah and the BoM seem to support traditional Trinitarian doctrine and thus we would be the children of God (Father, Son and Holy Spirit)

My understanding of LDS specific doctrine is that we are all literal descendants of Heavenly Father and thus in the afterlife will be return as HIS children. (although the sealing ordinance somewhat complicates the meaning of family relationships as we can be the children of our earthly parents forever as well) Your post is the first time I have ever heard of us becoming the children of Christ as LDS doctrine. I am aware those scriptures have been around awhile but was always taught that they were figurative and to be taken as the Father and Son are one in purpose and thus our relationship with one is our relationship with the other.

 

[ben_dy]

Robert in SD:

Sorry for the tangent, but I had to get this out. Anyone want to start a thread on this subject?

Sure - I think you should start the thread as you’ve succinctly stated that which has puzzled me, particularly in reference to some of amgid’s messages which speak of LDS doctrine as sola scriptura combined only with what the sitting prophet may proffer. If this is the case then any edition (including the very first) of McConkie’s “Mormon Doctrine” would be out-of-date and the only way to ‘keep up’ with doctrine would be to collect and stay rigorously up-to-date the teachings of the current prophet and, when he dies, trash that collection and start anew.

If I don’t see you begin a new thread in the next couple of days, I will do so myself as this inability to ‘pin down’ doctrine on even the most basic tenets of faith can become very frustrating (but I also realize that, as Catholics, we are spoiled - that which was written by Gregory the Great was not disavowed upon the election of Sabinianus.

 

[frank_martin]

TOmNossor:

It is certainly true that some LDS believe or believed that Jesus was married. It is also true that some LDS believe or believed that Jesus had children.

I think (even long before the Da Vinci Code) the most common marriage partner suggested is Mary Magdalene and some LDS even suggested that Jesus was married to multiple women.

Some LDS use the importance of marriage for ones eternal progression to suggest that Jesus must have been married, but they neglect to consider the fact that Jesus and the Holy Ghost were fully divine in the pre-existence unlike us.

I think the evidence for Jesus being married is lacking. I have not studied the Da Vinci Code in detail, but as a LDS I do not consider this issue of prime importance.

One of the missing pieces of evidence that would have needed to be purged from history (which of course is not impossible but still) is the use of Jesus as a parent during the Christological controversies. I would think that if Jesus’ decedents were alive and well in France this would be a particularly powerful argument to make while debating one vs. two natures and …

I believe that evidence of the children of Jesus would be a huge blow to non-LDS Christianity, but it would have little impact upon LDS Christianity. I have thus far been uninterested in pursuing the arguments of Holy Blood, Holy Grail (or the Da Vinci Code).

Anyway, there does not seem to me to be any binding reason for LDS to demand that Jesus was married or had children, but there is also not anything to necessarily preclude a non-demanding view that this is true.

Charity, TOm

 

[Jerusha]

Thanks for picking that up for me. I had missed it.

 

[Chris-WA]

Casen:

I personally believe Jesus was married but must admit there is not much evidence to support my belief in the scriptures (though there are a few that lead me to this conclusion) and I don’t worry too much about it. I don’t doubt that some or many church leaders share my belief but I’ve never heard it taught in any church meetings or found the doctrine in any lesson manuals. It wouldn’t surprise me if some church leaders shared their opinions on the subject as has been suggested but lacking a revelation on the topic I must conclude that it’s not official doctrine. I think if the topic were important to our salvation God would have issued a revelation and we’d find it covered in the Doctrine and Covenants or one of our other Standard Works.

Casen, the idea that Christ was married is so rediculous that I have to wonder how a rational person could come to such a conclusion. With no scriptural evidence, no historical record, and no tradition passed on, how could you possibly hold such a belief? This topic is important because it either further supports or does not support the concept of eternal marriage, which is a huge topic of disagreement between Mormons and the rest of Christianity.

This “personal opinion” nonsense regarding teachings of early LDS prophets needs to stop. You need to see it for what it really is–they taught this stuff from their position of authority to their followers–and their followers believed it. Every time something like this comes up, one of you throws down what should heretofore now be called the “personal speculation card.” It’s an automatic defense mechanism used by LDS to dismiss embarrassing or controversial teachings of their earlier prophets. When you do this you are walking a very fine line between supporting and discrediting these former LDS prophets in their status as true prophets. I wonder what the current LDS prophet teaches may someday be called “personal speculation.” To be sure, it will be when somebody calles him on something he taught and the future LDS apologist will play the personal speculation card.

 

[Robert_in_SD]

If LDS members are speculating about Jesus’ marital status, then what is the speculation among LDS members for necessity of the suppression of this fact from all of the early christian writings? Why would it be so necessary to suppress the existence of a family?

I understand TOm’s suggestion that the existence of Jesus descendents would be a blow to modern christianity, but how would it have hindered early christianity to develop with an understanding the Jesus had a family?

 

[amgid]

Chris-WA:

Casen, the idea that Christ was married is so rediculous that I have to wonder how a rational person could come to such a conclusion.

OK, I personally don’t believe that Jesus was married; but why is the idea so ridiculous? There is nothing in the scripture which says that He was not married; and going by the cultural values of the time, it is very reasonable to assume that He should have been married.

With no scriptural evidence, no historical record, and no tradition passed on, how could you possibly hold such a belief?

OK, there is no evidence that He was married; but where is the evidence that He wasn’t? Since when did the absence of evidence for something became evidence of its nonexistence?

This topic is important because it either further supports or does not support the concept of eternal marriage,

Why? It does neither.

which is a huge topic of disagreement between Mormons and the rest of Christianity.

You mean Apostate Christianity. I quite agree that there are lots of topics of disagreement between Mormonism and Apostate Cristianity.

This “personal opinion” nonsense regarding teachings of early LDS prophets needs to stop.

Is that so? Who is going to stop it? is It you?

You need to see it for what it really is–they taught this stuff from their position of authority to their followers–and their followers believed it.

Who are “they”? Name me them, please.

Every time something like this comes up, one of you throws down what should heretofore now be called the “personal speculation card.” It’s an automatic defense mechanism used by LDS to dismiss embarrassing or controversial teachings of their earlier prophets.

You seem to be giving off a lot of steam all of a sudden. Let us suppose that it is. If so, that would be our problem, not yours; why are you so worked up about it?

When you do this you are walking a very fine line between supporting and discrediting these former LDS prophets in their status as true prophets. I wonder what the current LDS prophet teaches may someday be called “personal speculation.” To be sure, it will be when somebody calles him on something he taught and the future LDS apologist will play the personal speculation card.

Our position is made clear enough in the quotes I had given form our leaders. It need not be given again.

amgid

 

[GodBlessJoanie]

How can a person honestly believe via Scripture that Jesus was ever married? Where was his wife when he was crucified? If HE was married to Mary Magdalane, why did she ask <> “what have you done with my LORD?” Why didn’t she ask for her husband?

The Sacrament of marriage is so powerful that IF Christ were married, I’m sure HE would have made it very very clear through Scripture that he was.

Blessings,
Joanie

 

[Robert_in_SD]

If Christ were married to a single person it would apparently contradict the teaching that the Church is the bride of Christ.

 

[catholic-rcia]

“If Christ were married to a single person it would apparently contradict the teaching that the Church is the bride of Christ.”

It would also contradict the nature of God, the Trinity, true love, who God is. Who the Holy Spirit is, Who Jesus is, Christianity, our faith in God as Creator of all things, lover of all things as one in Christ. A married Jesus would make Jesus – God - just like us. And this is what the Church of Jesus Christ of latter day saints is all about. I say this in all humility.

We are the created bride of Christ; he brings us into himself, into the Trinity because we are loved even though we are sinners, creation in search of our own center. But as a Catholic the only center is the center of God. God does not look for self gain, God wants us to gain Himself. He is at our side calling each of us to him. If we can hear the voice of the Shepard and know Him than we can come to know what he did not take in the dessert when offered.

 

[Asa_Ben_Judah]

Robert in SD:

If Christ were married to a single person it would apparently contradict the teaching that the Church is the bride of Christ.

Is not the Bide of Christ those who serve God the Father in Spirt and in Truth irrespective of the denominational label?

True Disciples
21 "Not all people who sound religious are really godly. They may refer to me as Lord,' but they still won't enter the Kingdom of Heaven. The decisive issue is whether they obey my Father in heaven. 22 On judgment day many will tell me, Lord, Lord, we prophesied in your name and cast out demons in your name and performed many miracles in your name.’ 23 But I will reply, `I never knew you. Go away; the things you did were unauthorized.’

Matthew Chapter 7

 

[Asa_Ben_Judah]

GodBlessJoanie:

How can a person honestly believe via Scripture that Jesus was ever married? Where was his wife when he was crucified? If HE was married to Mary Magdalane, why did she ask <> “what have you done with my LORD?” Why didn’t she ask for her husband?

The Sacrament of marriage is so powerful that IF Christ were married, I’m sure HE would have made it very very clear through Scripture that he was.

Blessings,
Joanie

Miriam of Magdala anointed Jesus prior to his Passion and Resurrection, she was at the foot of the Cross when he gave up the ghost and she was the first to see him in his resurrected glory, quite a priveleged woman in my opinion.

I know many married women who reverence their husbands as their Lord!

Nevertheless let every one of you in particular so love his wife even as himself; and the wife [see] that she reverence [her] husband. Ephesians 5:33

and finally, how do we know that when the Catholic church began to see the unmaried celebate state as more holy than the married state that it did not remove any reference to Jesus being married?

God is Love and we should love one another!

Asa

 

[Tmaque]

Asa Ben Judah:

and finally, how do we know that when the Catholic church began to see the unmaried celebate state as more holy than the married state that it did not remove any reference to Jesus being married?

Asa

The “the Catholic church began to see the unmaried(sic) celebate(sic) state as more holy than the married state” when Christ and Paul the Apostle said it was so.

Matt. 19:11-12, Matt. 19:29, 1 Cor 7:1, 1 Cor. 7:7, 1 Cor. 7:27 and 1 Cor. 7:32-33, 38 make it clear that celibacy is preferred for those who want to truly follow God.

 

[ben_dy]

Asa Ben Judah:

and finally, how do we know that when the Catholic church began to see the unmaried celebate state as more holy than the married state that it did not remove any reference to Jesus being married?

Asa

If you will allow yourself about 15 seconds to think about the monumental impossibility of what you suggest, you’ll understand the enormity of evidence that is stacked against such a proposition.

 

[majick275]

Even if it were so wouldn’t JS have corrected this in his JST Bible? Surely the BoM would correct something so important since it contains “the fullness of the gospel” don’t you think?

No, I think it obvious that JS changed his theology over time and the LDS church adapted their scriptures accordingly. After all the only known “first vision” account that is in JS own handwriting showed a completely different nature of God than what is now in the PoGP.

The Book of Commandments had the polygamy disclaimer and the lectures on faith removed so that the D&C could put forth completely different doctrines.

The JoD has been somewhat “hidden” except for the passages that support current doctrinal views that can be found in various LDS lesson manuals.

This is not a doctrine that has been built line upon line but rather one that has been “invented”, renovated, walls torn down and rebuilt repeatedly.

The D&C has numerous “scriptures” that are nothing more than detailed instructions to individuals on how to manage their temporal affairs, yet for years there has been nothing deemed worthy of the canon. The revelation mentioned in the last official declaration still hasn’t been published.

We are told repeatedly how the RCC removed many plain and precious things from the Bible, yet where are these things to be found in the LDS church? What has the current prophet, seer and revelator prophesied, seen or revealed?

LDS throughout the world just gathered at their conference to sing “we thank thee oh God for a prophet” and “praise to the man”. While “brother Joseph” is supposedly mingling with Gods so that he can plan for his brethren the LDS church is adapting their message to their marketing data. Where is the “blessing” of being led by a prophet?

Is there a single LDS doctrine of any importance that has been consistently taught from JS to Gordon Hinckley?

 

[Robert_in_SD]

Asa Ben Judah:

Is not the Bide of Christ those who serve God the Father in Spirt and in Truth irrespective of the denominational label?

True Disciples
21 "Not all people who sound religious are really godly. They may refer to me as Lord,' but they still won't enter the Kingdom of Heaven. The decisive issue is whether they obey my Father in heaven. 22 On judgment day many will tell me, Lord, Lord, we prophesied in your name and cast out demons in your name and performed many miracles in your name.’ 23 But I will reply, `I never knew you. Go away; the things you did were unauthorized.’

Matthew Chapter 7

I’m not talking about a denomination. “Denominations” are a creation of the reformation. I am talking about the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church founded by Jesus Christ, that’s been around for 2000 years. The “pillar and foundation” of truth. 1 Tim 3:15. All who serve God in spirit and in truth are joined to His Church, although some are imperfectly joined.

 

[Asa_Ben_Judah]

ben_dy:

If you will allow yourself about 15 seconds to think about the monumental impossibility of what you suggest, you’ll understand the enormity of evidence that is stacked against such a proposition.

YES, I apologise…

Asa