Do mormons think Jesus Christ was married ?

[RebeccaJ]

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…

I assure you, I have been neither sarcastic or off topic.

Putting forth my own ideas and opinions doesn’t necessarily need to be viewed as being intolerant of yours. Right?

When you are ready to actually dialogue, it could possibly become engaging. Have yet to find out.

 

[Pepband_Mom]

Actually, it is not logical that he was married as men are married. He is the groomsman and his bride is the Catholic Church. According to Catholic theology, the primary point of marriage is procreation. With this in mind, it seeems illogical for Christ to get married as God the Son was never meant to have children. God the Son was sent on this earth to be the redeemer of mankind, not to procreate. “The task at hand” was the will of almighty God, and this will was followed by Mary and by Christ from the moment of their conception.

Bravo! Jesus is the Bridegroom. We, His Church of which the gates of hell will never prevail against it, are the Bride. Any union with a mere creature is impossible; His plan of Love for His Bride (all of us) is infinitely better. Besides that would make Him an adulterer with His Church. He is neither a liar or adulterer.

Jesus* blessed the baptismal waters HE walked into*… They did *nothing for Him *as He is God Incarnate, the Divine Nature of Christ is Perfection & not subject to the fall that men are; although the Word made Flesh was tempted in all ways. Baptism, the sacrament of initiation, is the NT fulfillment of the OT circumcision. Sacramentum is the Latin for “COVENANT”

LDS see Jesus as the so-called “spirit brother” of Lucifer a dreadfully fallen, created being who wants to be as God. Theologically this is one of the LDS’ worst blunders = sadly, they all want to be “as gods”. See lie from the serpent in the garden as told in Genesis; apparently, they have fallen for the godhood scenario; the same lousy lie still works so why change what works even today!!!

 

[HonoraDominum]

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.

On a related note, I am not a man, I am a woman. :curtsey:

Your responses are prolific and in-depth, and truth be told I do not have the time to respond to each and every one of the specific topics that you addressed. But I do think that we could continue to unpack one of the original concepts that you expounded upon, as I would like to know your answer to a specific question that I feel needs to be addressed to move onto a different subject.

"Burning in Bosom" in Moroni and D&C vs James 1:5

In discussing my description of the Double Bind, you pick up on the discussion of the Moroni Promise and the double-bind it can entail. You bring up James 1:5 as bringing a similar concept, to show that the Moroni promise has “essentially the same construct” as a Biblical teaching. However, I see a distinct difference between the Moroni Promise and James 1 when the scriptures are read in context.

The Moroni Promise - no room for "No"

For any Catholic readers who may not be aware, at the Book of Mormon finale, the Nephites (read: the “good guys”) have all been slaughtered and the record of their people is about to be buried by the last surviving member of the Nephite tribe, Moroni. Moroni makes a specific promise about the book and its contents - “And when ye shall receive these things, I would exhort you that ye would ask God, the Eternal Father, in the name of Christ, if these things are not true; and if ye shall ask with a sincere heart, with real intent, having faith in Christ, he will manifest the truth of it unto you, by the power of the Holy Ghost. And by the power of the Holy Ghost ye may know the truth of all things.” (Moroni 10: 4-5 , Book of Mormon)

The Moroni promise is used specifically in context of the Book of Mormon. He does not say to read the Bible, or to pray to verify that Jesus is the Christ. Moroni makes a specific “If A then B” argument - if you ask God if the Book of Mormon is true, you will receive an answer from the Holy Ghost. In D&C 9:8, this “answer” to expect is clearly defined by a revalation to Oliver Cowdery: “But, behold, I say unto you, that you must study it out in your mind; then you must ask me if it be right, and if it is right I will cause that your bosom shall burn within you; therefore, you shall feel that it is right.”

This concept of pray about the Book of Mormon and you will receive an answer is fundamental to the evangelical efforts of the Mormon church. I relate a story that was shared by H. Bryan Richards at the October 2004 General Conference (emphasis added):

I recall an experience with a zone leader in England who came to me during the lunch break at zone conference. He said,** “We are teaching a lady who is blind and nearly deaf. She wants to know if the Book of Mormon is true. What shall we do?”** I did not have an answer at that moment, but I said, “I will let you know after our conference.” During the afternoon session I had the distinct impression come as to how to help her. After the meeting I said to the zone leader,** “Have this sister hold her copy of the Book of Mormon and turn its pages very slowly. When she has done this, have her ask if it is true.” **Though she could not read nor hear the words, she felt the spirit and power of the Book of Mormon, and it changed her life.

James 1:5

Looking at James, the context of the scripture gives a different perspective than simply the “If A then B” logic of Moroni 10. The chapter starts with a discussion about temptation and faith. In context, the exhortation of James is a solution to a problem. James first discusses the blessing of temptations, and how when faith is tried through these temptations, the virtue of patience grows. After this discussion, James then says that if anyone lacks wisdom, ask God, who gives liberally. In this context, the action discussed in chapter 5 is in context of growing the virtues, specifically the virtues of faith and patience. In discussing how to grow in virtues, many of God’s truths are discussed as well. God gives liberally; God does not give temptation, as temptation is evil and God is not evil; God gives all; etc.

Also, in dipping into the teachings of Catholic saints (as a Mormon might dip into the teachings of a past Prophet of the church), one can also reflect on the Ignatian framework for making a decision. In essence, the decision making process, and the process of listening for the “wisdom” of God, largely boils down to being open to God’s will. **When looking at James in the context of “wisdom” being God’s will, the entire passage comes together in a way that it doesn’t when not reflecting on it in this manner. **To rephrase James, if anyone lacks the knowledge of God’s will, ask Him, and He will give you this knowledge.

Lacking “wisdom” and discerning God’s will

Sometimes, the lack of an answer is the answer that God wants a person to hear. This option is simply not possible under the “If A then B” mentality of the Moroni promise. Under the Moroni promise, there is no room for the answer being “No”. Under the logic of the scriptures in James, if I lack the knowledge and wisdom I seek of whether I should become Mormon or not, using the Ignatian method of decision making, there is the option of the answers being Yes, become Mormon, or No, do not become Mormon. There is no contingency in Moroni for this, and when the answer to the Moroni challenge is “No” (like it is for me), there is no explanation as to why this is.

The bottom line of Catholic teaching is that we always strive not to know all, but simply to do the will of God and to know what He wants us to know, and to do all with Love. At the Annunciation, Mary said, not my will but Thine be done. In the garden of Gethsemone, Christ prayed, May this chalice be taken from me, but not My will, but Thy will be done. And in the Lord’s Prayer, the prayer that Christ taught us to teach us how to pray, this concept is again driven home. Fiat voluntas Tua, sicut in caelo, et in terra - Thy will be done on earth as it is in heaven. As St. Augustine said, “Love God, and do what you want.” As long as a person performs the duties required of him in his state in life, all for love and fear of God, then he will grow in holiness and sanctification.

We do not need to know anything at all to be saved. We only have to have faith, and to love God. Faith is a grace given by God, and cannot be received no matter how many books are read or how much action is done. However, loving God is an act of the Will, and this love is manifested in following the commandments of God and having a deep fear of offending him that keeps one free from deliberate sin. God’s will may be that we be ignorant failures in this world, but in keeping us ignorant, it gives us the opportunity to grow in faith and love not because of the consolations given to us by God, but simply in gratitude for all that He has given us.

The $64,000 question - what if I take the Moroni challenge and get the answer of “No”?

And now we come to the nutmeat of the whole argument. I was baptized, I paid my tithing, I went through the ceremonies of the temple, I read the Book of Mormon cover to cover, and I prayed. Oh, how I prayed. I prayed for years to receive the spiritual gift that H. Bryan Richards says a woman was able to receive simply by flipping through the pages of the book. And yet I did not receive the answer that I needed to be able to believe that Book of Mormon was the revealed word of God.

In the logic of Mormon theology, there is no room for “no”. How can the answer from God be “no” for me and so many of the ex-Mormons on the board? We have ex-Priesthood holders, ex-missionaries, ex-Endowed members, and we have all heard “no”, which while acceptable under Catholic teachings as they relate to James 1:5, is logically impossible under the Moroni challenge.

What is your explanation for this?

 

[EllieH]

On a related note, I am not a man, I am a woman.
And now we come to the nutmeat of the whole argument. I was baptized, I paid my tithing, I went through the ceremonies of the temple, I read the Book of Mormon cover to cover, and I prayed. Oh, how I prayed. I prayed for years to receive the spiritual gift that H. Bryan Richards says a woman was able to receive simply by flipping through the pages of the book. And yet I did not receive the answer that I needed to be able to believe that Book of Mormon was the revealed word of God.

In the logic of Mormon theology, there is no room for “no”. How can the answer from God be “no” for me and so many of the ex-Mormons on the board? We have ex-Priesthood holders, ex-missionaries, ex-Endowed members, and we have all heard “no”, which while acceptable under Catholic teachings as they relate to James 1:5, is logically impossible under the Moroni challenge.

What is your explanation for this?

It is interesting to me that when I was writing the response to your post on Double-binding that I had a sense that this was your real question and that I could have avoided the time and effort of putting together all of the other material and just dwell on this and it would be more targeted. It was a simple sense and I passed it by not wanting to appear as if I was not addressing the entirety of your post. I also passed it by because of my nature.

I am analytical to a fault. Sometimes when I need to see the tree I can’t because I have to identify specie and genus of every plant in the forest. Thus in a nutshell, I am still working on fully submitting my will to the Saviors and as he is so gentle and requires a pure sacrifice of my will freely given, he lets me remember that he made a suggestion, and that I failed to listen with the pure desire to serve him. Instead, I served me.

“I” enjoy thinking, “I” enjoy research, “I” love crafting words and sentences, “I” love the sound of my own voice, I, I, I, I…For these reasons “I” did not properly, stop, identify the feeling in my heart and respond properly to your true question. I / we might have been better served if “I” had listened to Him and separated “I” out of the equation to clearly identify His voice and not miss focusing on it for the quiet and gentle non-insistent pleasant feel of his will. He does not compete for our attention, he simply guides and waits for us to turn an ear in his direction and say “what would you have me do Lord” Then, having our full attention he can expand upon his answer. I am going to write what comes to my heart this time.

I can’t overstate just how gentle this nudge was as to your real question of a burning in your bosom. It was so gentle that if had been completely unyielding in my desire of doing his will I would have missed it entirely and not even recollected it. Even this very soft touch, this nearly imperceptible feeling, I would now describe as a burning in my bosom. Not for the magnitude of the response but for my greater understanding of what it takes to coax a small flame into a burning fire. No matter what we expect it will be, the spirit is always described in terms of a still small voice. Keep in mind it is a “burning” analogy attempting to portray the burning purifying power of the flames of the Holy Spirit. The initial small flame is precisely that. We must be quiet and protect it from the winds of distraction. Our focus must be on that frail, gentle flame that threatens dying out without our full 100% attention.

Finally, this flame is sustained long enough that the quick burning tender that started our effort can get hold of the kindling for a more stable burn until finally it takes hold of the seasoned wood chunks and finally the slow burning logs begin to carry the load and our fire is stable and enduring. This represents a single event of burning in the bosom. It varies in intensity based on the requirements of prepared dry wood, proper focus and diligent effort to fuel the flames and the Lords understanding of what is appropriate for the individual. Every time we follow this council of inquiring of the Lord and focusing on his response we improve upon the enduring nature of our fire. One of the other posters said something about how we focus on getting a testimony of The Book of Mormon and nothing else. For whatever reason that person has simply misunderstood or simply ignored the truth. You provided this scripture in your post:

Moroni 10:4
4 And when ye shall receive these things, I would exhort you that ye would ask God, the Eternal Father, in the name of Christ, if these things are not true; and if ye shall ask with a sincere heart, with real intent, having faith in Christ, he will manifest the truth of it unto you, by the power of the Holy Ghost.

The verse acknowledges very clearly, beyond question, to any ears that would hear it that one must first have a testimony of Jesus Christ. There is no testimony of the Book of Mormon to be born unto you until you first have Christ as the central burning log in the flame that sustains your effort. Then, after Christ, you can start building upon the Book of Mormon and the scriptures as you progressively embrace the foundational doctrines and seek to build deeper understandings.

The slow stable burn of my testimony in Jesus Christ sustains me but as I venture into deeper understandings it still takes a similar process. Every step of the way I am building a greater capacity to endure his presence by the increasing presence of his spirit residing in me. Each step requires that I continue to ask and plead to know him better and I have to nurture each individual fire I would have, until it becomes stable, adding just the right material until the new little fire becomes united with the core fire…Until finally I am a light on a hill. How often I have blown out tiny flames not willing to go through the process when I am seeking to establish new flames of understanding in other areas of my testimony. Still, as the fires do build it gets easier and easier because little fires continue to unite with the core fire and I get to borrow larger more stable chunks of glowing embers from my increasingly stable core to initiate new expansions of understanding.

If however, I build fires too far away from my core fire in areas that I am not able to comfortable reach then I threaten both fires….Hence my objections to matters of milk and meat. If one reaches out taking hold of doctrines such as Christ was married but has not the sense of Adam and Eve’s union having been originally intended and required to be an eternal union, one cannot run back and forth trying to fuel the distant fire of Christ’s marriage if that individual does not believe that marriage is an eternal union in the first place. Better to leave the distant fire alone for now and build one closer to the core that embraces that Adam and Eve, joined, originally in a state of no death, must have been intended to be married forever. Then this can expand out to I love my husband or wife and my children and I beg of God to know is there a chance that we can be together forever? …and a little flame ignites. Then this closer small fire can more readily draw upon the heat of the core and finally become one with the core as the central fire expands another few inches instead of being expected to make the leap of 20 feet to Christ was married.

I know this because this is somewhat the process of drawing closer to the Lord. We hear him sometimes and not others. Sometimes we have heard him and demanding greater manifestation won’t hear the soft and gentle still small voice of “I am here child, what do you desire?” We want a louder “I AM HERE CHILD (turns to us, grabs our face and turns it towards his requiring our eyes to focus on nothing but him) WHAT DO YOU WANT”. Our wanting him to turn to us does not change the actual process of us turning to him.

End of part 1

 

[EllieH]

When I was more immature in this process, I feel now, looking back, that the Lord was far more “flexible” with me then than now. I have to listen harder, and push “me” out of the way with more energy than the first time. That is how he makes us grow in perfections, in submitting our will to his, in overcoming the voice of the world to seek only his voice as our guide. However, where much is given much is expected. He expects me to store up and remember all of the earlier answers. And no matter what new doubt may enter into my mind, I am required to remember, as scripture reminds, that he has always sustained the fire of his presence. Failure to remember leaves us trying to build a sustaining fire with little bits of tender being the only thing we are willing to stoke it with. Then with doubt the wood takes on moisture. Moist wood does not burn, little pieces can be dried quickly enough but big doubts tax the fire greatly. The smoke starts to billow and the flames having no fuel begin to die back.

Sometimes, I have seen people only die back to the point of the fire of their belief in Jesus Christ and they start again seeking the fuel they can find to reestablish the core. The last wood pile is mistaken as the problem, so they find another wood pile. However, my experience has been, that often very many leave the church, then leave Jesus Christ and God entirely.

However, when I learn, I do get better at the process. I have felt his gentle encouragements, and when I listen and turn towards him the fire swells and the burning in my bosom is magnified multiple times to a powerful sense of his presence commensurate with the degree required for the experience and need at hand.
Now referencing your final question, “What is your explanation for this?.” I’m sharing here what has come to my mind. There is one piece of the analogy that stands out for me. Based on the degree of your involvement with the church, of which I had no idea, but based upon the degree of your involvement, are you asking me to believe that you did not believe, before your Book of Mormon crisis, that it was true but you were willing to make the covenants of the Temple, you had faith adequate to pay tithing, you married a return missionary you initiated all of these very powerful examples of faith without any faith? For what little I am able to sense of the degree of your earnestness and desire to know, you are truly one of the best Catholics on this board that I have engaged with. You are not in the least shallow, not prone to pettiness and remarkably mature. Am I to believe you have not always been earnest in your desires? Unless you tell me otherwise, from what I can sense these things are you and at this point I would not believe it.

So, I ask you to remember as I mentioned above. Remember back to the days before the crisis began to root in your heart. Remember the day you were married, if you have born children during that time frame - remember the first time you held each of your children in your arms. In each of these events and more did you not look to heaven in your heart’s eye and thank God for blessing your life with so many blessings that opened the view of the eternities. When the trials and the afflictions came that threatened your faith, did you not see the hand of the Lord as he reached out to pull you from the waves of water lapping at your faltering steps. Whatever you once felt that motivated you then, was almost assuredly already contained by something you already had.

The one piece of the analogy that still stands out for me that I mentioned earlier, there simply seems a subtle sense of understanding that this may have been something to think further about. I do not know for sure and so won’t elaborate too much on what I feel but if this makes sense to you then we can discuss later. Think about stoking the fires of the collective burnings in your bosom that enabled you to do all of those other things in the church, think about stoking them with wet wood. Think upon it and if that that takes hold and seems to mean something to you PM me and I’ll share what I feel. This part of the forum is not the place for such and I am not to go there.

In the end of it all, I am glad you were able to leave the church with your testimony of Jesus Christ intact. So many do not and I cannot image so great a loss tearing the foundations of my soul completely away. Nonetheless, I have never seen a one leave that there was not some tremendous pain associated with tearing out the other aspects of belief as well. I can honestly say that from what I can see that when you lost whatever points of testimony that you lost and left the church, the church lost something wonderful as well. I know you did put everything you had into seeking your answers. I’m convinced you worked and worked and worked just as you say to find what you so desperately needed. Like I said I am reluctant to play the friends of Job role and judge you for something that I don’t really know. But consider upon the thought above and maybe there is more yet to be said.

 

[zaffiroborant]

Better to leave the distant fire alone for now and build one closer to the core that embraces that Adam and Eve, joined, originally in a state of no death, must have been intended to be married forever. Then this can expand out to I love my husband or wife and my children and I beg of God to know is there a chance that we can be together forever? …and a little flame ignites.

End of part 1

Please explain how a husband, wife and children can be together forever. Will they be together as a family, mom, dad and kids? How is this possible when the children grow up and create their own families to be together with for eternity. The LDS “families can be together forever” doesn’t really make sense if you think it out. My daughter Jane will be with me and my husband forever and her husband Dave will be with his mom, dad and sibling forever as a family. How can they be together forever as a family with their own kids if they each have to be together with their own parents as a “together forever family”? It makes no sense in families that remain intact and in cases of death or divorce and remarriage it becomes truly awful. Over all it is at best a shallow teaching and at worst a painful tearing apart of the relationships formed in this life.

 

[EllieH]

Please explain how a husband, wife and children can be together forever. Will they be together as a family, mom, dad and kids? How is this possible when the children grow up and create their own families to be together with for eternity. The LDS “families can be together forever” doesn’t really make sense if you think it out. My daughter Jane will be with me and my husband forever and her husband Dave will be with his mom, dad and sibling forever as a family. How can they be together forever as a family with their own kids if they each have to be together with their own parents as a “together forever family”? It makes no sense in families that remain intact and in cases of death or divorce and remarriage it becomes truly awful. Over all it is at best a shallow teaching and at worst a painful tearing apart of the relationships formed in this life.

I can reference a few scriptures and stuff like that but when it really comes down to the LDS interpretation against another person’s interpretation I’m not sure it is all that persuasive nor informative.

Sometimes in scripture we like to find the one or two or twenty scriptures that makes a point and claim that for authority and that works often enough but sometimes we simply have to extrapolate from the scripture story itself.

In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth, which when it was finally completed the Lord pronounced it good. What was good? The Genesis 1 informs us the light was good; the seas and the dry land were good; the seeds the plants the creation of a day and its divisions into light and darkness; the whales, and birds and essentially everything up to that point is finally pronounced good. Thereafter comes man and a very significant observation is made, “It is not good that the man should be alone.”

Genesis isn’t always the best in chronological alignment as Genesis 1 is rather an overview and then it recaps some key elements in Genesis 2. However, up until now there is no death. The fall has not taken place and we find that it is not good for man to be alone.

Finally Genesis 2 completes the creative process and pronounces the final summation of it all – it was VERY good. What moved it from “not good” to something more than just “good” was when Adam was no longer alone and he had a wife and with he and her together it was now very good – and still there is no death and there is a decree to multiply and replenish the earth.

There after comes the fall and now death enters into the scenario. The decree given in their eternal state can be fulfilled and they begin having children. I can’t give you definitive scriptural reference that really gives any of us much insight about the conditions and exact timing of events and their fulfillment. However, what is clear is that Adam had a helpmeet drawn from his rib. It is perhaps a poor choice of a word on the surface to choose “rib” to describe the origin of a woman’s relationship to a man to us who do not speak Hebrew as it does not complete the imagery as well as it might.

For brevities sake I’ll keep this short the word is tsela in Hebrew and is used many many times in the Old Testament but only in this place is it translated as “rib” as found here. However, the inference of the word tsela is that it represents a curved half of an arch that is matched by the other side of the arch. The ribs of a boat for instance where one half forms the one side and is matched by another rib that completes the other side. Does a boat float if it only has one side or is the balancing side of the arch required to make it whole. So it is with the rib cage. We have one half that curves down to the right and one half that curves down to the left. Neither without the other would be considered whole or able to fulfill the very important role of protecting the heart. So the imagery is complete in that only one side of an arch, standing alone, is unstable and falls unable to stand without its compliment – an equal half arch that leans at the top on the other half of the arch and each relies on the other and together they support in such a way as to be stronger together that ever they are apart.

When Christ pays the price for our sins we find certain imagery used in scripture to describe the uniqueness of his place in the eternities – for as in Adam all men die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive. Death was the result of the fall and yet through some means not perfectly understood by man Christ alone was able to return the eternities back to Adam and he could again return to his pre-fall eternal condition. However, the question we have to ask is would Adam, in this gift an opportunity to live again eternally, would Adams state be the same “very good” state of being that he was in before the fall. Since, it is well accepted by most religions that Christ overcame the burdens of death, are we to think that his effort was limited and could not be pronounced “very good”. Would God look upon the acts of his son as complete if he only returned a “good” state of existence when he was sent to overcome all of the effects of the fall? Or did Jesus Christ overcome all of the effects of the fall so that his effort can be finalized in these words “very good”?

That’s the question. I have been fortunate in my life and when I look at my helpmeet I realize that without her I am incomplete. Not just in some sappy silly love song sort of way, but in more tangible ways. I am a better person because she completes me. She challenges my maleness and helps me learn to keep it in proper boundaries. She compliments everything I do with a balancing influence as I do her as two halves of an archway that depend upon the other half of the archway to remain upright. Without her and she without me are not “very good”. Christ gave that back to Adam and Eve or he did not fix all of the loss that came into being because of the fall. I don’t believe that and frankly, I do not see how anyone could.

End of part 1

 

[EllieH]

You ask about children and such and I’m not sure exactly what you mean. We will exist much like we do in this existence relative to how parents raise their children and then as adults we retain our familial association. Just as now where my children have begun moving out, they still remain my children and we share an affiliation that is unique to family. That affiliation and association is believed by the LDS to be able to be continued into the eternities upon the principles of righteousness. Though your children grow up and leave the home do they cease to see you as their mother?

These relationships mature, but they do not go away. When you get together for Thanksgiving, if that is afforded you as an opportunity, do your sons and daughters fail to see each other as brothers and sisters? Do you see the grandchildren, if you have any, as your grandchildren? Even should one of your children return from living in Germany and show up for the holidays is he or she no longer a son or a daughter or a brother or a sister simply because of proximity. Those ties are not so easily broken in our hearts, when our lives have been fortunate enough to have had these types of relationships as healthy ones.

Granted not all have it so and this also is fixable through Christ’s sacrifice. Divorce was never intended as an option for a husband and wife and yes it does complicate matters from our perspective. Still it is upon his authority that the sick are healed whether that be spiritual sickness, physical sickness or emotional sickness all are healed IF they turn to the Lord and obey his word. Once healed the Lord puts it back together in the appropriate way for those individuals involved.

I think most forget Christ’s response to the Pharisee’s concerning divorce and that it is not a Godly condition:

Mark 10:2-8

2 And the Pharisees came to him, and asked him, Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife? tempting him.

3 And he answered and said unto them, What did Moses command you?

4 And they said, Moses suffered to write a bill of divorcement, and to put her away.

5 And Jesus answered and said unto them, For the hardness of your heart he wrote you this precept.

6 But from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female.

7 For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and cleave to his wife;

8 And they twain shall be one flesh: so then they are no more twain, but one flesh.

I think you limit Christ if you state that he is not able to overcome all of the effects of man’s wickedness and rebellious nature. Nor do I think it consistent with seeing him as a Savior and yet unable to save the broken amongst us, including those who have broken their families. It starts with hope, leads to faith. Men and women mess up even the most precious of things which the Lord pronounces as very good. That is the result of wickedness as stated by Christ himself.

However, Christ has the power to repair the damage done by the wicked. In the end it can all be worked out where faith and hope have enabled the people to come unto Christ and overcome their wickedness. I believe these things to be true but you seem to have potentially lost the hope that it can be and perhaps even the desire that it would be nice if it were possible. Perhaps again we ask the question did Christ overcome the effects of the fall? Or did he not…This question seems to me to be a yes or no question and not a maybe or “kind of” type of question.

If I am not addressing your question let me know, and if I have an answer, I will try again.

 

[twopekinguys]

I can reference a few scriptures and stuff like that but when it really comes down to the LDS interpretation against another person’s interpretation I’m not sure it is all that persuasive nor informative.

Sometimes in scripture we like to find the one or two or twenty scriptures that makes a point and claim that for authority and that works often enough but sometimes we simply have to extrapolate from the scripture story itself.

In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth, which when it was finally completed the Lord pronounced it good. What was good? The Genesis 1 informs us the light was good; the seas and the dry land were good; the seeds the plants the creation of a day and its divisions into light and darkness; the whales, and birds and essentially everything up to that point is finally pronounced good. Thereafter comes man and a very significant observation is made, “It is not good that the man should be alone.”

Genesis isn’t always the best in chronological alignment as Genesis 1 is rather an overview and then it recaps some key elements in Genesis 2. However, up until now there is no death. The fall has not taken place and we find that it is not good for man to be alone.

Finally Genesis 2 completes the creative process and pronounces the final summation of it all – it was VERY good. What moved it from “not good” to something more than just “good” was when Adam was no longer alone and he had a wife and with he and her together it was now very good – and still there is no death and there is a decree to multiply and replenish the earth.

There after comes the fall and now death enters into the scenario. The decree given in their eternal state can be fulfilled and they begin having children. I can’t give you definitive scriptural reference that really gives any of us much insight about the conditions and exact timing of events and their fulfillment. However, what is clear is that Adam had a helpmeet drawn from his rib. It is perhaps a poor choice of a word on the surface to choose “rib” to describe the origin of a woman’s relationship to a man to us who do not speak Hebrew as it does not complete the imagery as well as it might.

For brevities sake I’ll keep this short the word is tsela in Hebrew and is used many many times in the Old Testament but only in this place is it translated as “rib” as found here. However, the inference of the word tsela is that it represents a curved half of an arch that is matched by the other side of the arch. The ribs of a boat for instance where one half forms the one side and is matched by another rib that completes the other side. Does a boat float if it only has one side or is the balancing side of the arch required to make it whole. So it is with the rib cage. We have one half that curves down to the right and one half that curves down to the left. Neither without the other would be considered whole or able to fulfill the very important role of protecting the heart. So the imagery is complete in that only one side of an arch, standing alone, is unstable and falls unable to stand without its compliment – an equal half arch that leans at the top on the other half of the arch and each relies on the other and together they support in such a way as to be stronger together that ever they are apart.

When Christ pays the price for our sins we find certain imagery used in scripture to describe the uniqueness of his place in the eternities – for as in Adam all men die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive. Death was the result of the fall and yet through some means not perfectly understood by man Christ alone was able to return the eternities back to Adam and he could again return to his pre-fall eternal condition. However, the question we have to ask is would Adam, in this gift an opportunity to live again eternally, would Adams state be the same “very good” state of being that he was in before the fall. Since, it is well accepted by most religions that Christ overcame the burdens of death, are we to think that his effort was limited and could not be pronounced “very good”. Would God look upon the acts of his son as complete if he only returned a “good” state of existence when he was sent to overcome all of the effects of the fall? Or did Jesus Christ overcome all of the effects of the fall so that his effort can be finalized in these words “very good”?

That’s the question. I have been fortunate in my life and when I look at my helpmeet I realize that without her I am incomplete. Not just in some sappy silly love song sort of way, but in more tangible ways. I am a better person because she completes me. She challenges my maleness and helps me learn to keep it in proper boundaries. She compliments everything I do with a balancing influence as I do her as two halves of an archway that depend upon the other half of the archway to remain upright. Without her and she without me are not “very good”. Christ gave that back to Adam and Eve or he did not fix all of the loss that came into being because of the fall. I don’t believe that and frankly, I do not see how anyone could.

End of part 1

1.How does this answer Zaff’s question about families staying together?

1. For breveities sake? How many parts are we going to go through for you to make your point?
2. No , you didn’t make your point.

I believe Zaff’s question is: How are families going to be together in the after life without destroying someone else’s family?

If My wife is sealed to me, and my children, then she won’t be with her parents.

It is a simple question that doesn’t require circumnavigating the globe to get an answer.

I’m just sayin…

 

[Eric_Hilbert]

Thread hopelessly off topic.
Closed.