Do LDS Believe Jesus Was Married?

[Asa_Ben_Judah]

Robert in SD:

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.

With respect I am afraid I will have to challenge this claim, the RCC began at the first Council of Nicea 325 CE when Constantine imposed a further apostacy upon the Christian faith i.e. the notion of Caesaropapism, the phenomenon of combining the power of secular government with the spiritual authority of the Christian Church; in its extreme form it is a political theory in which the head of state is also also the head of the church.

Since then Jesus Christ was no longer the head of the RCC.

However, Christians including Catholics, Protestants and Mormons etc., who serve the Father through his son Jesus Christ in Spirit and in Truth comprise the true church which cannot be numbered nor labeled/categorised because they are known only by God.

 

[majick275]

Combining secular and ecclesiatical authority is not new nor is it “inherently” a bad thing.

Israel was led by Moses and Joshua in this manner. Joseph Smith did this in Nauvoo and Brigham Young absolutely epitomized this in early Utah. The BoM is filled with examples of this from the Judges to king Benjamin.

Obviously this is something that can be abused but then name one system of government that men haven’t abused.

As Christians we look forward to the day when only God rules. until then, I think some folks tend to overthink the “render unto ceasar” words of the Savior.

I would also submit to you that neither constantine nor any other earthly ruler has the ability to “fire” Jesus as the head of the church. The Holy Spirit is God, he guides and protects the church. Jesus made sure that the the church that HE established cannot be defeated by all the powers of Hell. I firmly believe that God the father would never take 1800 or so years off to leave generations of his children wandering helplessly in spiritual darkness.

 

[Robert_in_SD]

Asa Ben Judah:

With respect I am afraid I will have to challenge this claim, the RCC began at the first Council of Nicea 325 CE when Constantine imposed a further apostacy upon the Christian faith i.e. the notion of Caesaropapism, the phenomenon of combining the power of secular government with the spiritual authority of the Christian Church; in its extreme form it is a political theory in which the head of state is also also the head of the church.

Since then Jesus Christ was no longer the head of the RCC.

However, Christians including Catholics, Protestants and Mormons etc., who serve the Father through his son Jesus Christ in Spirit and in Truth comprise the true church which cannot be numbered nor labeled/categorised because they are known only by God.

I would take this statement seriously if you could cite to some credible authority for the proposition that it was Constantine who started the Catholic Church.

Let me just state the following:

Constantine’s Christian mother, St. Helena, raised him with Christian beliefs, although he did not convert until his deathbed - a common practice among people of that time. He defeated the pagan general Maxentius under the standard of the Christian cross in AD 312. The next year Constantine signed the Edict of Milan which officially ended the Roman persecution of the Church. It is absurd to think he attempted to paganize the Church. In AD 361, the emperor Julian the Apostate launched a persecution of the Church in an attempt to bring back paganism. This would not have been necessary if the Church had become pagan at the time of Constantine (AD 312-337).

A careful study of the first 300 years of Christianity reveals that Catholic doctrines such as the Eucharist, Apostolic authority, and the Pope as the successor to St. Peter, were believed by Christians from the very beginning. They certainly did not arise with or after Constantine.

See Jurgens, The Early Church Fathers, Vol. 1,
See Madrid, Why is that in Tradition
See Willis, The Teachings of the Early Church Fathers

Also, where does the Bible say that the combination of secular and church authority is contrary to God’s will? Even so, your statement equates church authority with divine authority. The Pope is not and has never been understood as being a usurper of Christ’s divine authority. He has always been understood by Catholics to be the successor of Peter.

 

[Chris-WA]

amgid:

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.

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?

You’re being unreasonable. That opens up scripture to any possibility you could imagine. Let’s go with what we know and draw some logical conclusions. I highly doubt that such an important fact about Jesus’ life would have been completely left out of the scriptural record. If He was married, it would be in there. We know from scripture Jesus had an earthly mother, an earthly step-father, extended family, etc. If those people are mentioned, I think it’s safe to say there would be a mention of a wife and or children, especially at the foot of the cross upon Jesus’ crucifixion. We have several different viewpoints and descriptions of Jesus from people who knew Him personally. For not a single one of them to mention wife or children is pretty solid evidence.

And it does have something to do with supporting or not supporting eternal marriage. Some LDS support the idea of Jesus being married because of the LDS emphasis on eternal marriage and its necessity for entering the celestial kingdom. They reason that if so, then Christ must also be married. If Christ was not married, than I believe this is a blow to eternal marriage because here we have an example of the very leader of Christianity not following precepts that the LDS church holds so central to eternal salvation.

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

I’m appealing to reason and logic for LDS to stop using this tactic for dismissing statements made by earlier prophets. I cannot stop it, of course, but can only hope that reason will prevail.

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?

Because this tactic is at its core dishonest and stalls good discussion. It is simply a way to ignore the teachings of previous prophets without having to deal with the teachings themselves. It’s like sweeping evidence under a rug. It’s gone on for too long and I’m asking for it to stop. As long as LDS posters continue to use the “personal opinion card” as a way of hiding from reasonable discussion, we will continue to spin our wheels and get nowhere.

 

[isaac.madsen]

Nowhere is it stated in LDS doctrine that Christ had a wife during his earthly ministry, but you can suppose (because of the requirement in LDS Doctrine of Eternal Marriage to attain Godhood) that Christ (definitely being a God since his mortal ministry - whether or not he was so before his earth life) would be required by LDS Doctrine to have a wife at this point.

In other words, LDS Doctrine requires Christ to be married in order to attain Godhood. So in order to discover when he must have been married (according to LDS principles) one must understand when he attained Godhood. So if you want to know whether God was married during his earthly ministry, you would have to know when (according to LDS faith) he attained Godhood. Such a statement has never been declared by an LDS prophet. Thus, the subject is left to speculation.

 

[majick275]

isaac.madsen:

Nowhere is it stated in LDS doctrine that Christ had a wife during his earthly ministry, but you can suppose (because of the requirement in LDS Doctrine of Eternal Marriage to attain Godhood) that Christ (definitely being a God since his mortal ministry - whether or not he was so before his earth life) would be required by LDS Doctrine to have a wife at this point.

In other words, LDS Doctrine requires Christ to be married in order to attain Godhood. So in order to discover when he must have been married (according to LDS principles) one must understand when he attained Godhood. So if you want to know whether God was married during his earthly ministry, you would have to know when (according to LDS faith) he attained Godhood. Such a statement has never been declared by an LDS prophet. Thus, the subject is left to speculation.

But what of this:

Statement by Brigham Young, second prophet of the LDS church:

  *"The Scripture says that He, the Lord, came walking in the Temple, with "HIS TRAIN; I do not know who they were, unless his wives and children;"* (Journal of Discourses, Vol. 13. page 309)

This was taught as doctrine in general conference by BY counselo in the first presidencyr Jedediah Grant, Apostles Orson Hyde and Orson Pratt, and Pres. Joseph F. Smith (although he was an apostle at the time) The specific talks are too lengthy for here but are recorded in the JoD, The millenial star, The seer, Wilford woodruffs Journal and are easily verified. Jospeh Fielding Smiths’s answers to gospel questions books seem to support this as well. (they are not as explicit though)

The idea of Jesus “attaining godhood” is in direct opposition to
Catholic doctrine which is that Father, son and holy spirit are one god. (which is also in the BoM since originally JS was trinitarian) We believe that this one God is and always has been God, always will be and there have no others before him, nor are there any others now nor shall there ever be.

 

[paul_barlow]

majick275:

But what of this:

Statement by Brigham Young, second prophet of the LDS church:

  *"The Scripture says that He, the Lord, came walking in the Temple, with "HIS TRAIN; I do not know who they were, unless his wives and children;"* (Journal of Discourses, Vol. 13. page 309)

This was taught as doctrine in general conference by BY counselo in the first presidencyr Jedediah Grant, Apostles Orson Hyde and Orson Pratt, and Pres. Joseph F. Smith (although he was an apostle at the time) The specific talks are too lengthy for here but are recorded in the JoD, The millenial star, The seer, Wilford woodruffs Journal and are easily verified. Jospeh Fielding Smiths’s answers to gospel questions books seem to support this as well. (they are not as explicit though)

The idea of Jesus “attaining godhood” is in direct opposition to
Catholic doctrine which is that Father, son and holy spirit are one god. (which is also in the BoM since originally JS was trinitarian) We believe that this one God is and always has been God, always will be and there have no others before him, nor are there any others now nor shall there ever be.

naughty. i think we have had this arguement before. B.Y. may have said that but it is not taught as doctrine. Lets not forget who Jesus was he did not need to reach the highest degree of glory he was there before he came to earth. we however do need to be married and then through there faith and service to god. They can achieve the celestral kingdom.
the doctrine of the trinity was not even taught in scriture the way your church teaches it. Heveanly father, Jesus and the Holy Ghost. Are seperate personages. to deny that Jesus cried to his father does not make sense . your view is then that the saviour fathered himself. Jesus promised to send the comforter after he returned to hevean. he was not talking about himself.

 

[isaac.madsen]

Also, when Christ was baptized, the father spoke from heaven. The holy ghost descended “as a dove” (which can be described as symbolism or actuality). This describes three distinct personages, unless (as Catholicism would seem to describe it) God was acting as a puppeteer, manipulating his children as marionettes, as if life were some show put on for those in heaven. This is certainly not the way God works. He definitely has an influence in our lives, but earth is not just some play to entertain the man upstairs. We are given agency to choose whether to fulfil our destiny or not. Christ was born of the holy ghost and Mary, and came to this earth as God’s son - a man of Godly qualities. No matter how the Da Vinci code may state it, he was Godly. Indeed, he had human qualities, but not the quality of sin. The qualities he had of man gave him the power to die. The qualities of Godhood gave him the power to take up his life again. God is the father of our spirits. Christ is our Savior, and the father of our eternal souls. The holy ghost is the father of our faith (or our belief) giving us truth and light. In this sense, they are one, as we are to be one with them in purpose and in spirit. We are to become perfect, even as our father in heaven is perfect. Whether Christ was married or not is irrelevant to our salvation, but if he were, I believe such a thing could be supported by both LDS and Catholic Doctrine. What say you?

May God be with us all,

Isaac Madsen

 

[majick275]

No Paul, what you are describing as Catholic doctrine on the trinity is modalism and is considered heresy by the RCC. We believe in 3 persons who are one God. This is certainly what the BoM says. The original D&C switched this to two Gods (father and son) who share one mind (holy ghost), later JS changed to 3 Gods.

I agree with you that many of BY doctrines are not NOW taught as doctrine but when he said these things HE said they were doctrine.

 

[Tmaque]

I think the doctrine of the Trinity proves it’s truthfulness by virtue of the fact that it exists. As men, we always seek to understand everything. We seek to understand God, to re-shape him so our minds can grasp him. LDS have done this quite nicely.

The ECF’s refused to do this. They took the facts, added nothing, deleted nothing, and accepted the reality that God is unexplainable. The Trinity is a mystery, God is a mystery and we accept that fact. We know Jesus is God, we know the Father is God and we know the Holy Spirit is God. There are three persons, yet, we also know that there can only be one God. LDS have created God in their image. We’ve left God a mystery, as he must be to our mortal minds.

We cannot fathom 5 or 7 dimensions of space yet scientists know they exist. They are beyond our comprehension and all we can do is accept it. If there are dimensions of space that we cannot comprehend, then we certainly cannot comprehend God.

 

[Tmaque]

isaac.madsen:

Also, when Christ was baptized, the father spoke from heaven. The holy ghost descended “as a dove” (which can be described as symbolism or actuality). This describes three distinct personages, unless (as Catholicism would seem to describe it) God was acting as a puppeteer, manipulating his children as marionettes, as if life were some show put on for those in heaven. This is certainly not the way God works. He definitely has an influence in our lives, but earth is not just some play to entertain the man upstairs. We are given agency to choose whether to fulfil our destiny or not. Christ was born of the holy ghost and Mary, and came to this earth as God’s son - a man of Godly qualities. No matter how the Da Vinci code may state it, he was Godly. Indeed, he had human qualities, but not the quality of sin. The qualities he had of man gave him the power to die. The qualities of Godhood gave him the power to take up his life again. God is the father of our spirits. Christ is our Savior, and the father of our eternal souls. The holy ghost is the father of our faith (or our belief) giving us truth and light. In this sense, they are one, as we are to be one with them in purpose and in spirit. We are to become perfect, even as our father in heaven is perfect. Whether Christ was married or not is irrelevant to our salvation, but if he were, I believe such a thing could be supported by both LDS and Catholic Doctrine. What say you?

May God be with us all,

Isaac Madsen

Catholics believe in three persons, one God. We, however, don’t ADD facts to the mix like God has a body, and he, Jesus and the Holy Spirit are really just three seperate, divine beings in some sort of a continual mind-meld. The scripture say there is one God, not one Godhead, not one God_Commitee. LDS refuse to leave God a mystery.

Catholic doctrine does not support Jesus being married. History does not support it. Common sense does not support it.

 

[ex-mormon]

Tmaque:

I think the doctrine of the Trinity proves it’s truthfulness by virtue of the fact that it exists. As men, we always seek to understand everything. We seek to understand God, to re-shape him so our minds can grasp him. LDS have done this quite nicely.

The ECF’s refused to do this. They took the facts, added nothing, deleted nothing, and accepted the reality that God is unexplainable. The Trinity is a mystery, God is a mystery and we accept that fact. We know Jesus is God, we know the Father is God and we know the Holy Spirit is God. There are three persons, yet, we also know that there can only be one God. LDS have created God in their image. We’ve left God a mystery, as he must be to our mortal minds.

We cannot fathom 5 or 7 dimensions of space yet scientists know they exist. They are beyond our comprehension and all we can do is accept it. If there are dimensions of space that we cannot comprehend, then we certainly cannot comprehend God.

Todd,
If I could add to your definition of a Mystery: from This is the Faith by Cannon Francis Ripley

A Mystery of religion is not a truth about wich we can know nothing; rather it is a truth about which we cannot know everything. It is not so much an unscalable wall as an endless gallery into which the mind can progress further and further without ever coming to an end. No matter how much the mind concentrates on a mystery, there will always remain a mass of truth it has not made its own.

I have always loved this analogy and I hope it helps.
God Bless,
ex-mo

 

[Zakuska]

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

Standing at the foot of his Cross… what do you think would have happened to her if the Jews thought Christ had an Heir? They usurped the Throne of David and tried to Kill anyone who had a legitimate claim to it. You need to study the politics that where playing when Christ came. Once I understood this the Bible made a lot more senese.

You need to go to Barnes and Nobles and read “Woman with the Alabaster Jar” by Margaret Starbird (Catholic)

 

[arieh0310]

Zakuska:

You need to go to Barnes and Nobles and read “Woman with the Alabaster Jar” by Margaret Starbird (Catholic)

Starbird, a Catholic?



This lady is a feminist that is Catholic in name only, she denies most orthodox positions.

 

[Zakuska]

arieh0310:

Starbird, a Catholic?



This lady is a feminist that is Catholic in name only, she denies most orthodox positions.

Yeah and the popes put people like her to death left and right through out history. Look at Jone of Ark.

 

[isaac.madsen]

I’ll state it in a bit of a different way: I don’t know whether Christ was married. That is, as has been pointed out, a mystery, which only God can tell. I am neither for or against the idea. I could debate both sides if I wanted to because I have equilibrium of proof toward both sides of the argument. I’ll leave it at that.

God bless and keep us,

Isaac Madsen

 

[Zakuska]

Amen.

 

[arieh0310]

Zakuska:

Yeah and the popes put people like her to death left and right through out history. Look at Jone of Ark.

Joan of Arc is a canonized Saint and was condemned by an English ecclesiastical court under the aproval of Pierre Cauchon, the Bishop of Beauvais, who was a tool of the Burgundian party.

The pope played no role in her trial and execution.

 

[majick275]

Zakuska:

Yeah and the popes put people like her to death left and right through out history. Look at Jone of Ark.

Might want to study your history. Joan D’Arc is a saint. The pope was the one that overturned the bogus verdict against her by the lcoal tribunal. The english hated her for defeating them they trumped up some charges and convicted her in akngaroo court. The french sadly enough left her to her fate not really appreciating what she had done for them. She was a victim of politics not the pope.

 

[Tmaque]

ex-mormon:

Todd,
If I could add to your definition of a Mystery: from This is the Faith by Cannon Francis Ripley

A Mystery of religion is not a truth about wich we can know nothing; rather it is a truth about which we cannot know everything. It is not so much an unscalable wall as an endless gallery into which the mind can progress further and further without ever coming to an end. No matter how much the mind concentrates on a mystery, there will always remain a mass of truth it has not made its own.

I have always loved this analogy and I hope it helps.
God Bless,
ex-mo

That’s great. I agree with it completely