Jesus from LDS point of view

[RebeccaJ]

The church’s doctrine regarding this has been the same always ---- I do not know if your understanding is as I suspect — the words of a few ------

The church has been consistent in my membership regarding this and so 30 years it will be same as now.

*A Lecture by President Orson Hyde, delivered at the General Conference, in the Tabernacle Great Salt Lake City, October 6, 1854.

"We will turn over to the account of the marriage in Cana of Galilee, and the mother of Jesus was there. Yes, and somebody else too. You will find it in the 2nd chapter of John’s Gospel; remember it and read it when you go home. “And the third day there was a marriage in Cana of Galilee; and the mother of Jesus was there: and both Jesus was called, and his disciples, to the marriage. And when they wanted wine, the mother of Jesus saith unto him They have no wine. Jesus saith unto her, Woman, what have I to do with thee? mine hour is not yet come. His mother saith unto the servants, Whatsoever he saith unto you, do it. And there were set there six water pots of stone, after the manner of the purifying of the Jews, containing two or three firkins apiece. Jesus saith unto them, Fill the water pots with water. And they filled them up to the brim. And he saith unto them Draw out now, and bear unto the governor of the feast, And they bare it. When the ruler of the feast had tasted the water that was made wine, and knew not whence it was: (but the servants which drew the water knew the governor of the feast called the bridegroom, and saith unto him”—that is, the ruler of the feast saith unto the bridegroom, “Every man at the beginning doth set forth good wine; and when men have well drunk, then that which is worse: but thou hast kept the good wine until now.”

Gentlemen, that is as plain as the translators, or different councils over this Scripture, dare allow it to go to the world, but the thing is there; it is told; Jesus was the bridegroom at the marriage of Cana of Galilee, and he told them what to do."

**
An Address by President Brigham Young Delivered at the General Conference**, in the Tabernacle, Great Salt Lake City, October 6, 1854.

So much I wished to say to my brethren and sisters. We have had a splendid address from brother Hyde, for which I am grateful. I feel in my heart to bless the people all the time, and can say amen to brother Hyde’s last remarks. I know just as much about those matters as I want to know, and if I do not know more, it is because there is no more of it in the city. It is a hard matter for a man to hide himself from me in this Territory; the birds of the air, they say, carry news, and if they do not, I have plenty of sources for information.

I say to the congregation, treasure up in your hearts what you have heard to-night, and at other times. You will hear more with regard to the doctrine, that is, our “Marriage Relations.” Elder Hyde says he has only just dipped into it, but, if it will not be displeasing to him, I will say he has not dipped into it yet; he has only run round the edge of the field.

fairmormon.org/answers/Journal_of_Discourses/2/18#82*

…again I ask you, what in the last LDS general conference to you hold as “opinion”? Do you think the Saints listening in the Tabernacle in Salt Lake City, in 1854, believed they were listening to opinion? Were they being led astray by opinion? Today, what do you think is being taught that is leading you astray?

 

[CourtingTex]

A Lecture by President Orson Hyde, delivered at the General Conference, in the Tabernacle Great Salt Lake City, October 6, 1854.

"We will turn over to the account of the marriage in Cana of Galilee, and the mother of Jesus was there. Yes, and somebody else too. You will find it in the 2nd chapter of John’s Gospel; remember it and read it when you go home. “And the third day there was a marriage in Cana of Galilee; and the mother of Jesus was there: and both Jesus was called, and his disciples, to the marriage. And when they wanted wine, the mother of Jesus saith unto him They have no wine. Jesus saith unto her, Woman, what have I to do with thee? mine hour is not yet come. His mother saith unto the servants, Whatsoever he saith unto you, do it. And there were set there six water pots of stone, after the manner of the purifying of the Jews, containing two or three firkins apiece. Jesus saith unto them, Fill the water pots with water. And they filled them up to the brim. And he saith unto them Draw out now, and bear unto the governor of the feast, And they bare it. When the ruler of the feast had tasted the water that was made wine, and knew not whence it was: (but the servants which drew the water knew the governor of the feast called the bridegroom, and saith unto him”—that is, the ruler of the feast saith unto the bridegroom, “Every man at the beginning doth set forth good wine; and when men have well drunk, then that which is worse: but thou hast kept the good wine until now.”

Gentlemen, that is as plain as the translators, or different councils over this Scripture, dare allow it to go to the world, but the thing is there; it is told; Jesus was the bridegroom at the marriage of Cana of Galilee, and he told them what to do."

**
An Address by President Brigham Young Delivered at the General Conference**, in the Tabernacle, Great Salt Lake City, October 6, 1854.

So much I wished to say to my brethren and sisters. We have had a splendid address from brother Hyde, for which I am grateful. I feel in my heart to bless the people all the time, and can say amen to brother Hyde’s last remarks. I know just as much about those matters as I want to know, and if I do not know more, it is because there is no more of it in the city. It is a hard matter for a man to hide himself from me in this Territory; the birds of the air, they say, carry news, and if they do not, I have plenty of sources for information.

I say to the congregation, treasure up in your hearts what you have heard to-night, and at other times. You will hear more with regard to the doctrine, that is, our “Marriage Relations.” Elder Hyde says he has only just dipped into it, but, if it will not be displeasing to him, I will say he has not dipped into it yet; he has only run round the edge of the field.

…again I ask you, what in the last LDS general conference to you hold as “opinion”? Do you think the Saints listening in the Tabernacle in Salt Lake City, in 1854, believed they were listening to opinion?

These quotations that you have cited still do not validate what I said from the beginning of my replies here ----- if at that time it was the official doctrine of church, so be it, yet I read stated here on the forums that is the view of the officially today. It is not.

When you produce a quotation from the current President of the church confirming your view, then and only would I believe this notation.

I am confident I will never see such a quotation.

Kind regards.

 

[RebeccaJ]

These quotations that you have cited still do not validate what I said from the beginning of my replies here ----- if at that time it was the official doctrine of church, so be it, yet I read stated here on the forums that is the view of the officially today. It is not.

When you produce a quotation from the current President of the church confirming your view, then and only would I believe this notation.

I am confident I will never see such a quotation.

Kind regards.

And I pointed out, that the doctrine has changed, to which you replied it has not, that it was opinion before and what is taught today is doctrine.

As I said, I get it. You follow what is taught today, just as the Saints of 1854 did.

If you don’t view continuity important between what the Saints of 1854 were taught and believed, to the Saints of today, that makes you a good Mormon…except, then we can get into continuity of belief and teaching and the view Mormonism takes towards a “Great Apostasy”, and then oh double darn, continuity is important.

Good luck!

 

[CourtingTex]

And I pointed out, that the doctrine has changed, to which you replied it has not, that it was opinion before and what is taught today is doctrine.

As I said, I get it. You follow what is taught today, just as the Saints of 1854 did.

If you don’t view continuity important between what the Saints of 1854 were taught and believed, to the Saints of today, that makes you a good Mormon…except, then we can get into continuity of belief and teaching and the view Mormonism takes towards a “Great Apostasy”, and then oh double darn, continuity is important.

Good luck!

I hope your purpose is not to get in “gotta ya” moment ---- so that start to question my faith and conviction of the church where I have had membership now for almost 30 years. I am not, I repeat not returning to Catholicism if that is your motive. No chance of me going on Saturday to the nearest parish to confess and come back to Catholicism ----- I have been around the block, so to speak to know that I have nourish and continually build my faith regardless of what is said by another to convince otherwise.

Kind regards.

 

[RebeccaJ]

I hope your purpose is not to get in “gotta ya” moment ----

Always so suspicious about being persecuted. If you view rational thought as a gotcha, so be it. I view it as a gift from God.

so that start to question my faith and conviction of the church where I have had membership now for almost 30 years. I am not, I repeat not returning to Catholicism if that is your motive. No chance of me going on Saturday to the nearest parish to confess and come back to Catholicism ----- I have been around the block, so to speak to know that I have nourish and continually build my faith regardless of what is said by another to convince otherwise.

Kind regards.

I have a glimmer of hope, that rational thinking can penetrate. What you do with it, is up to you, not me. Sometimes, an LDS poster surprises me, with a rational reply and I must confess, it is delightful.

The zombie responses of “that was someone’s opinion”…doesn’t do much for me. (Sorry.)

But you and I know, the people from our respective former faiths, always hope for our return. It’s part of being who we are, where we came from, and where we are now. For myself, I’m ok with it. I don’t view it as a threat (though at one time I did).

 

[CourtingTex]

Always so suspicious about being persecuted. If you view rational thought as a gotcha, so be it. I view it as a gift from God.

I have a glimmer of hope, that rational thinking can penetrate. What you do with it, is up to you, not me.

I fully understand that catholic.com exists, in my case, to come back to Catholicism. No chance of that happening ever.

My feelings are irrelevant, persecution,etc ---- my conviction of what I believes is always important. My feelings and my conviction by the Holy Ghost of what I believe are separate from my feelings ----- I was persecuted when I was Presbyterian, particularly by those I know who question religion, whether Christian or otherwise.

Kind regards.

 

[RebeccaJ]

I fully understand that catholic.com exists, in my case, to come back to Catholicism. No chance of that happening ever.

My feelings are irrelevant, persecution,etc ---- my conviction of what I believes is always important. My feelings and my conviction by the Holy Ghost of what I believe are separate from my feelings ----- I was persecuted when I was Presbyterian, particularly by those I know who question religion, whether Christian or otherwise.

Kind regards.

Well, kind of begs the question, of why a place that apparently irks you is a place where you hang out.

But it sounds like that I should inform you, I am not catholic.com nor do I represent catholic.com. I’m just Rebecca.

 

[CourtingTex]

Well, kind of begs the question, of why a place that apparently irks you is a place where you hang out.

But it sounds like that I should inform you, I am not catholic.com nor do I represent catholic.com. I’m just Rebecca.

I am not here to be “irked” as you say. I understand you are not Catholic.com ---- your intention is do what regarding what I say on the forums??? You can say whatever ---- nothing offends me and far from persecution, using a another word. My conviction is the LDS church is beyond solid ---- nothing here is convince me otherwise.

Just to state my view as a Latter Day Saint, recognizing website in addition to the forums exist to defend Catholicism ---- certainly not speak well of my church.

Kind regards.

 

[RebeccaJ]

I am not here to be “irked” as you say. I understand you are not Catholic.com ---- your intention is do what regarding what I say on the forums???

No, I have no intention other than discussion.

You can say whatever ---- nothing offends me and far from persecution, using a another word. My conviction is the LDS church is beyond solid ---- nothing here is convince me otherwise.

Just to state my view as a Latter Day Saint, recognizing website in addition to the forums exist to defend Catholicism ---- certainly not speak well of my church.

Kind regards.

I point out facts, whether or not they speak well of your church, is entirely your view.

 

[rmcmullan]

I hope you all realise that the original poster’s statement is false. Or he doesn’t really know LDS theology. Let me quote the actual scripture from D&C 131:

1 In the celestial glory there are three heavens or degrees;

2 And in order to obtain the highest, a man must enter into this order of the priesthood [meaning the new and everlasting covenant of marriage];

3 And if he does not, he cannot obtain it.

Perhaps he does not understand the “three degrees of glory” or our use of the word “exaltation”. Or maybe I don’t understand his use of the word exaltation. To LDS folk, that means achieving celestial glory.

To make it more plain, contrary to his statement, it is not necessary to be married to achieve exaltation, i.e. to live in the presence of the Father and Son.

 

[Horton]

I hope you all realise that the original poster’s statement is false. Or he doesn’t really know LDS theology. Let me quote the actual scripture from D&C 131:

Perhaps he does not understand the “three degrees of glory” or our use of the word “exaltation”. Or maybe I don’t understand his use of the word exaltation. To LDS folk, that means achieving celestial glory.

To make it more plain, contrary to his statement, it is not necessary to be married to achieve exaltation, i.e. to live in the presence of the Father and Son.

I know Jesus was never married. I know Jesus was both fully divine and fully human. The OP (me) does understand the confusion of LDS thought. As an FYI most of us here do accept Doctrine & Covenants to be scripture so quoting them means nothing. As a Catholic I know there is one heaven, one eternal life, one eternal glory with God.

BTW - He is a she.

 

[rmcmullan]

SO you are the original poster. I sort of thought it was an insincere question but I gave you the benefit of the doubt. Of course your question doesn’t make any sense to an LDS person, you are basically asking how can Jesus live in the presence of the Father and Son (even though He is the Son) since he wasn’t married. To that I must say: Huh?

FYI, in LDS theology exaltation means living in the presence of God.

Even though your question was insincere and probably just an crack at criticizing people you don’t understand, I guess it’s still worth asking. You learn by asking questions.

 

[Horton]

SO you are the original poster. I sort of thought it was an insincere question but I gave you the benefit of the doubt. Of course your question doesn’t make any sense to an LDS person, you are basically asking how can Jesus live in the presence of the Father and Son (even though He is the Son) since he wasn’t married. To that I must say: Huh?

FYI, in LDS theology exaltation means living in the presence of God.

Even though your question was insincere and probably just an crack at criticizing people you don’t understand, I guess it’s still worth asking. You learn by asking questions.

It was a valid question. I was wondering how the LDS dealt with the contradiction of man needing to be married to be exalted and the fact the LDS claim Jesus is an exalted man. Is there the belief Jesus was married to be exalted. It seems there was at one time the belief Jesus was married, but now there isn’t.

 

[rmcmullan]

It sounds as though you did not understand my first post. From my previous post, I will highlight the pertinent passage:

***To make it more plain, contrary to his statement, it is not necessary to be married to achieve exaltation, i.e. to live in the presence of the Father and Son. ***

You must have read it, you corrected my use of “he” to “she”. I gave the exact scripture from the Doctrine and Covenants so there would be no doubt that this is the official teaching, back to the days of Joseph Smith. It’s never changed.

 

[Horton]

A Lecture by President Orson Hyde, delivered at the General Conference, in the Tabernacle Great Salt Lake City, October 6, 1854.

"We will turn over to the account of the marriage in Cana of Galilee, and the mother of Jesus was there. Yes, and somebody else too. You will find it in the 2nd chapter of John’s Gospel; remember it and read it when you go home. “And the third day there was a marriage in Cana of Galilee; and the mother of Jesus was there: and both Jesus was called, and his disciples, to the marriage. And when they wanted wine, the mother of Jesus saith unto him They have no wine. Jesus saith unto her, Woman, what have I to do with thee? mine hour is not yet come. His mother saith unto the servants, Whatsoever he saith unto you, do it. And there were set there six water pots of stone, after the manner of the purifying of the Jews, containing two or three firkins apiece. Jesus saith unto them, Fill the water pots with water. And they filled them up to the brim. And he saith unto them Draw out now, and bear unto the governor of the feast, And they bare it. When the ruler of the feast had tasted the water that was made wine, and knew not whence it was: (but the servants which drew the water knew the governor of the feast called the bridegroom, and saith unto him”—that is, the ruler of the feast saith unto the bridegroom, “Every man at the beginning doth set forth good wine; and when men have well drunk, then that which is worse: but thou hast kept the good wine until now.”

Gentlemen, that is as plain as the translators, or different councils over this Scripture, dare allow it to go to the world, but the thing is there; it is told; Jesus was the bridegroom at the marriage of Cana of Galilee, and he told them what to do."

**
An Address by President Brigham Young Delivered at the General Conference**, in the Tabernacle, Great Salt Lake City, October 6, 1854.

So much I wished to say to my brethren and sisters. We have had a splendid address from brother Hyde, for which I am grateful. I feel in my heart to bless the people all the time, and can say amen to brother Hyde’s last remarks. I know just as much about those matters as I want to know, and if I do not know more, it is because there is no more of it in the city. It is a hard matter for a man to hide himself from me in this Territory; the birds of the air, they say, carry news, and if they do not, I have plenty of sources for information.

I say to the congregation, treasure up in your hearts what you have heard to-night, and at other times. You will hear more with regard to the doctrine, that is, our “Marriage Relations.” Elder Hyde says he has only just dipped into it, but, if it will not be displeasing to him, I will say he has not dipped into it yet; he has only run round the edge of the field.

fairmormon.org/answers/Journal_of_Discourses/2/18#82

…again I ask you, what in the last LDS general conference to you hold as “opinion”? Do you think the Saints listening in the Tabernacle in Salt Lake City, in 1854, believed they were listening to opinion? Were they being led astray by opinion? Today, what do you think is being taught that is leading you astray?

It sounds as though you did not understand my first post. From my previous post, I will highlight the pertinent passage:

***To make it more plain, contrary to his statement, it is not necessary to be married to achieve exaltation, i.e. to live in the presence of the Father and Son. ***

You must have read it, you corrected my use of “he” to “she”. I gave the exact scripture from the Doctrine and Covenants so there would be no doubt that this is the official teaching, back to the days of Joseph Smith. It’s never changed.

As you can see by the above quote from Rebecca there was a time when LDS leaders DID believe Jesus was married. For a man to receive the highest level of LDS heaven, they must be married. For Jesus to achieve a place in the presence of the Father & Son, (which makes no sense as Jesus is the Son but that is another thread) according to your own D&C he must have been married. If he was not, then how is the contradiction explained?

 

[Marie5890]

***To make it more plain, contrary to his statement, it is not necessary to be married to achieve exaltation, i.e. to live in the presence of the Father and Son. ***

Holy cow. When did that doctrine change?

Can you point me to a talk that would support your comment about one does not need to be married to be exalted in LDS dogma?

I know that it was believed that a person could attain the Celestial kingdom in a state of salvation (it’s lower kingdom) and be single, but I was always taught that to achieve the highest level (exaltation) one had to have entered into the everlasting covenant of marriage (DC 132)

TIA.

(edit to add)

This is the closest thing I could find on LDS.org by one of the now living GA’s

lds.org/ensign/2008/05/salvation-and-exaltation?lang=eng&_r=1

This is by Russell M Nelson. If I am not mistaken, he is next in line, upon Thomas Monson’s death, to be president and sustained as prophet of the LDS church

 

[gazelam]

***To make it more plain, contrary to his statement, it is not necessary to be married to achieve exaltation, i.e. to live in the presence of the Father and Son. ***

I believe that “exaltation” (commonly known as “Eternal Life”) and achieving the Celestial Kingdom are being conflated here.

D&C 131
*1 In the celestial glory there are three heavens or degrees;

2 And in order to obtain the highest, a man must enter into this order of the priesthood [meaning the new and everlasting covenant of marriage];

3 And if he does not, he cannot obtain it.

4 He may enter into the other, but that is the end of his kingdom; he cannot have an increase.
*
One can enter the the two lower degrees of the Celestial Kingdom and live with the Father and the Son without being married. But only exalted beings can enter the highest degree and marriage is required to be an exalted being. I hope this helps…

 

[Marie5890]

I believe that “exaltation” (commonly known as “Eternal Life”) and achieving the Celestial Kingdom are being conflated here.

D&C 131
*1 In the celestial glory there are three heavens or degrees;

2 And in order to obtain the highest, a man must enter into this order of the priesthood [meaning the new and everlasting covenant of marriage];

3 And if he does not, he cannot obtain it.

4 He may enter into the other, but that is the end of his kingdom; he cannot have an increase.
*
One can enter the the two lower degrees of the Celestial Kingdom and live with the Father and the Son without being married. But only exalted beings can enter the highest degree and marriage is required to be an exalted being. I hope this helps…

Thanks, Gazelam. That is what I remember, but you articulated it much better.

 

[gazelam]

I hope you all realise that the original poster’s statement is false. Or he doesn’t really know LDS theology. Let me quote the actual scripture from D&C 131:

Perhaps he does not understand the “three degrees of glory” or our use of the word “exaltation”. Or maybe I don’t understand his use of the word exaltation. To LDS folk, that means achieving celestial glory.

To make it more plain, contrary to his statement, it is not necessary to be married to achieve exaltation, i.e. to live in the presence of the Father and Son.

I believe this comment is confusing the three degrees of glory (i.e., the Celestial, Terrestrial, and Telestial Kingdoms), with the three degrees of glory within the Celestial Kingdom.

 

[gazelam]

Thanks, Gazelam. That is what I remember, but you articulated it much better.

You are kind.