Do mormons think Jesus Christ was married ?

[EllieH]

Matthew and John are pretty clear (John has total clarity as an EYEWITNESS) that Christ’s declaration in MT 27:46 was to fulfill prophecy. It wasn’t some off hand remark in the midst of suffering that he believed his Father had abandoned him. It may have even been muttered since many of the pharisees, etc. misheard him as calling down Elijah the Prophet.

Look, you are clearly on fire for your Mormon faith. Bravo. I love Mormons. But we need to agree to disagree on the nature and event that brought us atonement for the original sin as we hold utterly different views on it.

“Christ paid a debt he didn’t owe because I owed a debt I couldn’t pay.”

• Scott Hahn

I think you and I are both in agreement that we hold different views. This is simply a discussion of those views as I seek to grasp clarity on what you believe. I’m good with that and enjoy the exchange.

That said you characterization of “off hand remark”, “Father had abandoned”, are distinctluy differnt that anything I feel or have communicated. That he fulfilled prophecy is abolutely correct, but are you saying that nothing took place and he was simply fulfilling the prophecy without going through the process that caused him to cry out to his Father? I don’t think you could possibly mean that but that is what it seems you are saying by the general marginalizing of the event.

Something actually occurred that for Christ was a real and painful loss of the presence of his Father. LDS theology and instruction typically acknowledges this not as abandonment but a withdrawel of his presence so that none could claim that Christ alone paid the price for our sins. For adequate time, he carried the burdens of he world alone and for reasons we’ll not be able to discuss, this was an act of requirement and his Father only withdrew as it was required to give efficacy to the sacrifice and enable him to be the only name under heaven whereby man can be saved and as it permitted Christ to claim the priviledge of extending judgment and mercy to whomever he would. He became the lien holder so to speak against the price of our sins.

As well, thus far in this discussion with others and their explanations of the worth of Gethesemene, especially the post from HonoraDominum on page two of this thread…(I haven’t quite figured out how to link to a previous post yet, otherwise I would have provided the link) As far as his response there is more to agree on than to disagree on from my reading of his material. In the final summation though, I think the entirety of the event was required for the entirety of the blessing of his sacrifice. Each portion fulfilled various aspects of requirement and from my own personal observation which may not concur with all LDS, I do not think the objections to the cross in LDS theology is the cross itself, but the fact that we feel like the meanings traditionally associated with the cross may not reflect a full treatment of all aspects of the sufferning that was effected in our behalf.

The greater message for me is that we all agree Christ paid the price for our sins and the opportunity to avail ourselves of those blessings is equally available to all.

 

[EllieH]

By the way, Baptism either sprinkling or immersion (as the Greek Orthodox and Byzantine Catholics have done since the beginning) is not a change in doctrine. If the form changed that would constitute a change. Water three times and these words, "I baptize you in the name of the Father (water), and of the Son (water) and of the Holy Spirit (water) constitutes the One Baptism we confess in the Catholic Church, and has been since Pentecost.

Hence you illustrate my overall point. From the outside looking in I can only see this process from the raw perspective of someone who lacks acceptance for the interpretations that validate your persepctive. I try to be charitable and objective but one cannot overcome the realities of the limitations of disbelief. I simply cannot see it the same way you do as a believer and that has been my point and reasoning of why we all have to be a charitable as possible as we discuss our unique perspectives.

 

[EllieH]

As long as we agree that all Christian and purported Christian denominations came from a rebellion within the True Catholic Church…

It is worthy of debate, the Reformation. But it isn’t really pertinent to this discussion.
Tell you what though, you are one seriously well-studied LDS member. I applaud you.
One thing that has fascinated me in the few days I have participated here is that I have seldom encountered people of religiosity who are as adamant about theirs being the only true religion as are the LDS. However, several of you have testified to such either directly or indirectly by your fervor. I applaud that aspect of your commitment and would not have noted it from the dry readings of religious writings but had to engage live believers to note the attitude. Whether we can agree on matters of doctrine or not, I do appreciate with the genuine earnestness of your commitment.
On the reformation we are agreed, I didn’t feel to go into it as it was not the point of this discussion.
Thank you for the kind words.

 

[EllieH]

I need to make one clarification. When I signed up for this forum, I choose a screen name in honor of a Catholic friend who was an elderly lady I knew in my early twenties when she passed away. Her’s is a dear memory and not thinking it through I thought to simply make her memory the origin of my screen name. I mentioned this in my get to know you post but it was not a well thought out choice as my get to know you post does not follow me around to clarify as to my gender. If I could change it I would go back and do so as it appears and justifiably so, to cause confusion.
So in the spirit of Robin Williams of Mrs Doubtfire acclaim I must yield a correction. I am not a female as my moniker would lead others to believe. I am a male who has served in many capacities in the LDS church. My apologies for the confusion. If there is a way to correct let me know and I will find a less gender biased name to go by.

 

[Jerusha]

We don’t mind at all. You are departing from the LDS teaching that gender is an eternal absolute.

 

[RebeccaJ]

I need to make one clarification. When I signed up for this forum, I choose a screen name in honor of a Catholic friend who was an elderly lady I knew in my early twenties when she passed away. Her’s is a dear memory and not thinking it through I thought to simply make her memory the origin of my screen name. I mentioned this in my get to know you post but it was not a well thought out choice as my get to know you post does not follow me around to clarify as to my gender. If I could change it I would go back and do so as it appears and justifiably so, to cause confusion.
So in the spirit of Robin Williams of Mrs Doubtfire acclaim I must yield a correction. I am not a female as my moniker would lead others to believe. I am a male who has served in many capacities in the LDS church. My apologies for the confusion. If there is a way to correct let me know and I will find a less gender biased name to go by.

Did you do a baptism for the dead for her?

 

[Stephen168]

Hence you illustrate my overall point. From the outside looking in I can only see this process from the raw perspective of someone who lacks acceptance for the interpretations that validate your persepctive. I try to be charitable and objective but one cannot overcome the realities of the limitations of disbelief. I simply cannot see it the same way you do as a believer and that has been my point and reasoning of why we all have to be a charitable as possible as we discuss our unique perspectives.

Now that Christian baptism has been explained to you, you now know that is has not changed since the first century just as HonoraDominum said. The Catholic Church still baptizes using the same formula and meaning given to us by Christ and the Apostles; in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit using living (moving) water.

 

[RebeccaJ]

One thing that has fascinated me in the few days I have participated here is that I have seldom encountered people of religiosity who are as adamant about theirs being the only true religion as are the LDS. However, several of you have testified to such either directly or indirectly by your fervor. I applaud that aspect of your commitment and would not have noted it from the dry readings of religious writings but had to engage live believers to note the attitude. Whether we can agree on matters of doctrine or not, I do appreciate with the genuine earnestness of your commitment.
On the reformation we are agreed, I didn’t feel to go into it as it was not the point of this discussion.
Thank you for the kind words.

Catholicism defines “church” much broader than Mormonism.

 

[EllieH]

Did you do a baptism for the dead for her?

Neither Ellie nor Mrs. Doubtfire are my family members. Not a bad Idea though…I should look into it to see if any in her family line ( Ellie’s) have completed the work.

 

[scipio337]

Neither Ellie nor Mrs. Doubtfire are my family members. Not a bad Idea though…I should look into it to see if any in her family line ( Ellie’s) have completed the work.

I’ve never understood that rationale. She made her choice in life, why not allow her the dignity of her decision?

 

[RebeccaJ]

I’ve never understood that rationale. She made her choice in life, why not allow her the dignity of her decision?

Yes, I agree.

This:

I need to make one clarification. When I signed up for this forum, I choose a screen name in honor of a Catholic friend who was an elderly lady I knew in my early twenties when she passed away. Her’s is a dear memory

is in opposition to this:
EllieH;9714177:

Not a bad Idea though…I should look into it to see if any in her family line ( Ellie’s) have completed the work.

 

[twf]

You are actually much further along than many from my perspective. You haven’t walked around the question and ignored it, nor have you just parroted something you heard or read somewhere without coming to your own conclusions. You have accepted that the verse is in Corinthians as scripture and that to fit it must have a place in your religious structure. That is good.

If I was going to go further and I was in your position, I would simply want to know more about the early practice of Baptism for the dead and then find out why it was stopped.

This post here from campeador offers some possibilities that would need further exploration. Particularly points 2 and 3 offer some interesting possibilities as they seem to reference the physical act of Baptism for the dead that was actually practiced in the early church. The first explanation on the list, from my way of thinking seems to want to ignore there was an actual event called baptism for the dead and that seems disingenuous to me. Still your efforts of dealing head on with the reality of the scriptural reference is commendable. While may not agree with your current conclusions, I nonetheless appreciate someone who has the courage to ask the hard questions.

Thank you for the compliments. I don’t believe that there is a definitive answer to this question. For me, that isn’t the end of the world - there are a number of “mysteries” when it comes to early Church practice (or even medieval Church practice for that matter), and as someone who was raised Protestant, and who carefully investigated the claims of the Catholic Church before reaching the conclusion that She is the one, holy, catholic, and apostolic Church founded by Christ, I obviously believe that the overall body of evidence defends the Church’s claims, despite the odd “mystery” that we simply can’t fully account for. I believe that my position on “baptism for the dead” does have merit, but I agree that there are valid arguments against it.

One thing that comes to mind is the Church’s gradually development of sacramental doctrine; as Catholics, we believe, of course, that all seven sacraments were instituted by Christ and the Apostles in the first century. The Church’s understanding of these sacraments, and even the formal distinction between sacraments (those seven fundamental rituals instituted by Christ which confer grace and always operate in a very particular manner by virtue of Our Lord’s promise) and sacramentals (those lesser rituals instituted by the Church that can confer grace, but are dependent upon the intercession of the Church and the faith of the individual) is a theological construct that took the Church many centuries to fully articulate. It occurs to me that some sort of water baptism ritual may have been practiced on behalf of the dead in the early Church without it necessarily being the sacrament of baptism as the Church understands it today. Terminology was not pricisely defined in the early Church. Take the verb “to ordain”…well into the the Middle Ages the Church speaks of ordaining monks, abbots, nuns…even deaconesses…today the verb is reserved for the sacrament of holy orders (the ordination of deacons, priests, and bishops), as the rituals that “make” a man or woman an abbot or a monk or a nun, etc are seen as sacramentals quite distinct from the sacrament of ordination. Even today there is a simple ritual that I myself perform on behalf of the dead that resembles baptism, and in fact calls to mind the sacrament of baptism…blessing oneself with holy water while invoking the name of the Trinity (in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit) can be used to obtain a partial indulgence on behalf of a deceased soul. This is a simple “baptism” of sorts, in terms of the external ritual, but as the Church came to more fully understand and articulate her faith, she became increasingly careful in defining terminology. I am aware that the rite I am performing is a sacramental that reflects and even draws its power from baptism, but not the sacrament of baptism.

 

[zaffiroborant]

First off let me just state how I appreciate the fact that you are not providing a knee-jerk response but one that is thought out and reflects genuine effort of thought. This is not just the usual defensive posturing but you have made genuine effort at validating your perspective. That is significant to me.

Prior to your post double bind was not a concept of which I was aware. I have read your description and I visited the site you provided and several other sites that discussed it and I will absolutely agree that this paradigm does exist. However, and please bear with me, but examine this double-bind concept with a little more objectivity…I’m not trying to disagree but just letting you see my thought process. As I stated it is a real paradigm, however, even as I was reading your description on it the first thought that occurred to me was that the argument was applicable to many areas but particularly religion in general. After I read the site you provided, I knew that I could type in a dozen different searches into Google and find everyone twisting the double bind concept to object to their particular point of offense. Atheists use it to undermine religious claims, Christians to undermine Catholics and Mormons and Protestants.

Here’s one for a person who is caught in a double bind for the restraints of her Catholic religion: http://www.fortunatefamilies.com/2012/dawns-story-dawn-elizabeth-wright/ . For space constraints, I won’t give a complete list of links but mixing up a few keyword searches with the word double bind will produce an eclectic brew for the discerning apologist or critic of practically any venue in life of which you can conceive. Few however are more absurd than Dawns story above…Here is an example for the supposed general double bind as perceived by someone concerning AA over religious themes in the AA program.

My God is okay. But the Gods represented by three of the main religions of the world today (Cristianity, Islam & Judaism) are, in large part, not like my God. I simply can’t get past the perception that the Gods represented by the organized religions are totally conditional, abusive, control freaks. There is a double bind mechanism going on and double binds are, by their very definition, inescapable. Not that one can’t escape per se, but they are inescapable whilst complying with the “binds”. (http://www.toxicdrums.com/is-god-an-abuser.html )

It’s obvious to me that if we explained double bind to James T. Kirk of the Starship Enterprise he would nod his head and tell you all about the Kobayashi Maru from his days at the academy. However, the interpretation of a set of events as a no win scenario can be applied to any organization with which one wants to take offense and it is particularly useful for decrying religion as a whole or any brand thereof. I can only ask that you think in broader terms and examine the potential abuse that comes from such a formula as double bind. Anyone can create these scenarios simply by filling in the formula. As a courtesy, I will not go into detail but one of the best examples is found within the history of the early Catholic Church relative to assessing a woman’s guilt for practicing the dark arts. However, let’s be clear, this example is not a focus point of this discussion and I do not want to consider it at this time but only to give you a point to consider in terms of the overall picture of your observations from a perspective that I hope will soften your bias to allow for a more generous consideration of how great is the potential abuse for using such a philosophical construct that is a poor construct for determining truth. For me, using the concept of double bind outside of the venue for which it was constructed brings it squarely into this venue:

Colossians 2:8
8 Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ.

So, my point is that it is possibly a reasonable construct for the unnatural state of mind of a schizophrenic dealing with the nuances of the burdens of the mind which are unique to their situation. Their condition imposes a perceptual challenge that creates a particular type of stress that Gregory Bateson coined a descriptive phrase to reference. (Gregory Bateson, a British linguist who studied schizophrenia, where he used the term “double bind” to describe as a symptom the stress that a schizophrenic feels when perceiving two conflicting messages. (http://www.toxicdrums.com/is-god-an-abuser.html))) That stress is not, IMO, universally applicable for the scriptural patterns of promise upon conditions, effort to achieve and failure when we fall short of fulfilling the conditions for whatever reason. How common it has become with contemporary societal indoctrination to absolve ourselves of any responsibility of the outcome – Double bind seems to me, because of its sophistic abuse, to simply be an expanded embrace whatever flavor of excuse rational that can be affixed to any demon of my choosing.

The key point and the one I think you were quick to overlook because you have accepted the paradigm of the double bind as applicable to Mormons, is that the double bind is not derived as a function of LDS theology. It is a function of scripture and more inclusively religion in General. Let’s look at a verse that is essentially the same construct that you considered the Moroni challenge to be:

James 1:5

5 If any of you lack wisdom, let him ask of God, that giveth to all men liberally, and upbraideth not; and it shall be given him.

6 But let him ask in faith, nothing wavering. For he that wavereth is like a wave of the sea driven with the wind and tossed.

7 For let not that man think that he shall receive any thing of the Lord.

This verse suggests no more to you than does Moroni. If you wish to understand something, ask of God who is generous and gives to all men liberally and he will receive what he seeks. However, there are conditions and if you fail in them you receive nothing. Those conditions have limited measurable potential other than the receipt of the promised blessing. It is only a double bind when it fails. For those that apply the formula above and succeed they perceive no sense of double-bind. They receive the promised revelation and because LDS believe that the heavens are open and God still communicates with man we can’t possibly interpret the process as a double bind process. It works, it has for me and it has for others…and for some it does not work…people in general, not just LDS, always play the Job card and presume to judge the individual unwisely and in accusatory fashion. If someone try’s it and fails it is a logical conclusion that they failed to meet the conditions of receipt but I can’t say why that would be the case.

End of part one to be continued…

Why do you change the font, this one is very very small, I have to get way up close to the screen to read it.

 

[EllieH]

Why do you change the font, this one is very very small, I have to get way up close to the screen to read it.

I’ll pay more attention…I compose them in word and then just straight across copy. Sometimes, it doesn’t do right and I get that size font… I think it might have something to do with when I cut and paste from a different site and then do not remember to standardize the fonts.

 

[maltmom]

Catholics don’t just believe in loving Christ, we believe in being truly united with Christ. We strive to live each day spiritually united to Christ, but for 15 minutes a day, we can be both spiritually and sacramentally united to the Word. Can you even imagine? The mystery is so great that I am sure that I will be dwelling on it and pondering it for the rest of my life and never understand. Four little words, “This is my body”, whispered over a piece of bread by a man with authority handed down from Christ himself, and that bread becomes a man, and that man is God. Most Christians, Mormons included, think they have to wait to see Christ and to be with Him. But He is here, right here, right now. We get to experience that love that is the Word, that love that loved us first. Right. Now.

He is really there.

Beautiful!!!

God Bless!

 

[EllieH]

I’ve never understood that rationale. She made her choice in life, why not allow her the dignity of her decision?

Yes, I agree.

This:

is in opposition to this:

Just toying with you folks, I was sure I could get a reaction out of someone…As I stated she is not my family line so when it is done it will be most likely from someone associated with her line.

 

[EllieH]

Catholics don’t just believe in loving Christ, we believe in being truly united with Christ. We strive to live each day spiritually united to Christ, but for 15 minutes a day, we can be both spiritually and sacramentally united to the Word. Can you even imagine? The mystery is so great that I am sure that I will be dwelling on it and pondering it for the rest of my life and never understand. Four little words, “This is my body”, whispered over a piece of bread by a man with authority handed down from Christ himself, and that bread becomes a man, and that man is God. Most Christians, Mormons included, think they have to wait to see Christ and to be with Him. But He is here, right here, right now. We get to experience that love that is the Word, that love that loved us first. Right. Now.

He is really there.

Mormons share in this potential, though of course we have differences in our perspectives from Catholic expectations.

 

[RebeccaJ]

Just toying with you folks, I was sure I could get a reaction out of someone…

AKA trolling.

 

[EllieH]

AKA trolling.

Could it possibly just of been a bit of humor? Sometimes it is as if you have no tolerance for anything I say or do and my every comment is but a target for sarcastic response. However, once again if you do wish to discuss the topic at hand I am happy to engage you.

Or then again, perhaps maybe you are showing a bit of humor as well…nah…who am I kidding…

 

[Imcatholic7]

Do mormons think Jesus Christ was married ?

It’s left up for the member to decide. But, their Church leaders in the past have taught so. (Brigham Young and others teaching that Jesus had multiple wives).