Jesus from LDS point of view

[gazelam]

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?

rmcmullan brings up a good point which reminded me of the fact that given Jesus’ distinct nature there may be different rules that apply to Him alone in certain cases. Note the story of the temple tax:

Matthew 17:24-27 (KJV)

And when they were come to Capernaum, they that received tribute money came to Peter, and said, Doth not your master pay tribute?

25 He saith, Yes. And when he was come into the house, Jesus prevented him, saying, What thinkest thou, Simon? of whom do the kings of the earth take custom or tribute? of their own children, or of strangers?

26 Peter saith unto him, Of strangers. Jesus saith unto him, Then are the children free.

27 Notwithstanding, lest we should offend them, go thou to the sea, and cast an hook, and take up the fish that first cometh up; and when thou hast opened his mouth, thou shalt find a piece of money: that take, and give unto them for me and thee.

Jesus makes the point that He shouldn’t be charged a tax to use the temple since He’s literal offspring of God the Father. Why would a child have to pay to enter his father’s house?

So, perhaps Jesus doesn’t necessarily have to follow the same rules that mere mortals do in all cases when it comes to returning to the presence of God the Father. We’re all spiritual offspring of God. He is physical offspring of God. In this regard He is different from us. This is pure speculation on my part.

 

[rmcmullan]

If you really want to understand, you will have to refer to the Doctrine & Covenants again, this time section 76 where the celestial, terrestial and telestial kingdoms are detailed. The Celestial kingdom is where the presence of both the Father and the Son is enjoyed and is what we would refer to as exaltation.

Now, go back to D&C 131 and you will see that the requirement to be married does not apply to all in the celestial kingdom. The celestial kingdom is further divided into three parts. There is no given description of the three divisions except to note that the highest division requires marriage. Subsequent verses suggest that this marriage will allow “an increase”, possibly becoming creators. But on this point, I am only speculating.

The other two thirds of the celetsial kingdom, which contains all of the exalted, does not require marriage although it does not exclude it.

---

Again, in case there is any confusion, Horton’s insistence that exaltation requires marriage is not Mormon doctrine and never has been.***

 

[Horton]

If you really want to understand, you will have to refer to the Doctrine & Covenants again, this time section 76 where the celestial, terrestial and telestial kingdoms are detailed. The Celestial kingdom is where the presence of both the Father and the Son is enjoyed and is what we would refer to as exaltation.

Now, go back to D&C 131 and you will see that the requirement to be married does not apply to all in the celestial kingdom. The celestial kingdom is further divided into three parts. There is no given description of the three divisions except to note that the highest division requires marriage. Subsequent verses suggest that this marriage will allow “an increase”, possibly becoming creators. But on this point, I am only speculating.

The other two thirds of the celetsial kingdom, which contains all of the exalted, does not require marriage although it does not exclude it.

---

Again, in case there is any confusion, Horton’s insistence that exaltation requires marriage is not Mormon doctrine and never has been.***

Going to LDS “scripture” means nothing to me as I do not believe any of it is from God or is divine. I believe as any faithful Catholic (or Christians in general) believe, there is one heaven and God does not require marriage for anyone. In fact, as stated clearly in the bible, marriage is an earthly state for those called to it.

Bolding something does not make it more true. But from your statements I understand that because Jesus wasn’t married, He then was only allowed into one of the two lower levels of LDS heaven. Is that a reasonable understanding?

 

[JMM1957]

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.

This bolded statement here seems at odds with your post #20 where you say the LDS doctrine has been the same always regarding a marriage involving Jesus?

 

[Marie5890]

If you really want to understand, you will have to refer to the Doctrine & Covenants again, this time section 76 where the celestial, terrestial and telestial kingdoms are detailed. The Celestial kingdom is where the presence of both the Father and the Son is enjoyed and is what we would refer to as exaltation.

Now, go back to D&C 131 and you will see that the requirement to be married does not apply to all in the celestial kingdom. The celestial kingdom is further divided into three parts. There is no given description of the three divisions except to note that the highest division requires marriage. Subsequent verses suggest that this marriage will allow “an increase”, possibly becoming creators. But on this point, I am only speculating.

The other two thirds of the celetsial kingdom, which contains all of the exalted, does not require marriage although it does not exclude it.

---

Again, in case there is any confusion, Horton’s insistence that exaltation requires marriage is not Mormon doctrine and never has been.***

According to the Gospel Principle’s manual, you are wrong.

The following link explains what exhalation means

lds.org/manual/gospel-principles/chapter-47-exaltation?lang=eng

 

[Horton]

According to the Gospel Principle’s manual, you are wrong.

The following link explains what exhalation means

lds.org/manual/gospel-principles/chapter-47-exaltation?lang=eng

So as of the date of that document, 2011, it was taught that to be exalted was to reach the highest level of LDS heaven and a male must be married.

As Christianity has a different understanding of who Jesus is from the LDS, then how did Jesus become exalted without being married?

 

[JMM1957]

According to the Gospel Principle’s manual, you are wrong.

The following link explains what exhalation means

lds.org/manual/gospel-principles/chapter-47-exaltation?lang=eng

I agree Marie 5890, I have read the links and came to the same conclusion. Exultation is defined as living with God in the highest level of the celestial kingdom, and marriage is required for that.

 

[JMM1957]

According to the Gospel Principle’s manual, you are wrong.

The following link explains what exhalation means

lds.org/manual/gospel-principles/chapter-47-exaltation?lang=eng

I would also like to point out something else from this link that I find to be incorrect in my opinion. It say Paul names two of the kingdoms of heaven in 1 Cor. 15:40-42. When reading this, I don’t think Paul was talking about heavenly kingdoms here, he speaks about heavenly bodies and earthly bodies, not celestial and terrestrial kingdoms. He differentiates between the brightness of the heavenly body and the earthly body, which seems he is making a comparison (verse 42) between what our physical bodies limitations are here on earth, and how they will be transformed into glorious bodies, as in Jesus. If you read further on in 1 Cor. 15:45-49, you see Paul was talking about the manner of the resurrection body, and not about different levels in the celestial kingdom.

 

[Marie5890]

I would also like to point out something else from this link that I find to be incorrect in my opinion. It say Paul names two of the kingdoms of heaven in 1 Cor. 15:40-42. When reading this, I don’t think Paul was talking about heavenly kingdoms here, he speaks about heavenly bodies and earthly bodies, not celestial and terrestrial kingdoms. He differentiates between the brightness of the heavenly body and the earthly body, which seems he is making a comparison (verse 42) between what our physical bodies limitations are here on earth, and how they will be transformed into glorious bodies, as in Jesus. If you read further on in 1 Cor. 15:45-49, you see Paul was talking about the manner of the resurrection body, and not about different levels in the celestial kingdom.

It’s things like this, and so many others, based on Biblical text, that made Mormon doctrine fall like a house of cards for me.

POOF

all came crashing down. I was taught to use critical thinking skills (IE think things thru) and my shelf off all Mormon inconsistances just broke.

I love JP11 encyclical “Fides et Ratio” when he talks about the importance of not only faith, but of rational thinking.

We are created in God’s images, therefore we have the ability to use rational thinking, and so we should.

Mormonism is irrational, when it’s really examined

 

[CourtingTex]

It’s things like this, and so many others, based on Biblical text, that made Mormon doctrine fall like a house of cards for me.

POOF

all came crashing down. I was taught to use critical thinking skills (IE think things thru) and my shelf off all Mormon inconsistances just broke.

I love JP11 encyclical “Fides et Ratio” when he talks about the importance of not only faith, but of rational thinking.

We are created in God’s images, therefore we have the ability to use rational thinking, and so we should.

Mormonism is irrational, when it’s really examined

It continues to amaze me with those of you who are former Mormons, or never were Mormons (yet you claim to know what we believe regarding this thread) ---- you will cite or quote some source and throw the Latter Day Saints’ way that this what I believe??

I further understand that it is your intention to, for whatever your motivation is to state what I and other Latter Day Saints believe regarding this thread. How about this recommendation?

Ask one of us versus the continuous drumbeat of inaccurate views regarding this thread.

Kind regards.

 

[JMM1957]

It continues to amaze me with those of you who are former Mormons, or never were Mormons (yet you claim to know what we believe regarding this thread) ---- you will cite or quote some source and throw the Latter Day Saints’ way that this what I believe??

I further understand that it is your intention to, for whatever your motivation is to state what I and other Latter Day Saints believe regarding this thread. How about this recommendation?

Ask one of us versus the continuous drumbeat of inaccurate views regarding this thread.

Kind regards.

Your comment then, on my post #48?

 

[CourtingTex]

Your comment then, on my post #48?

It is great you quote a actual official LDS source versus the created views that I see regularly on the forums. Not angry or offended — I accept there are folks who have issues with the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints.

Kind regards.

 

[Marie5890]

It continues to amaze me with those of you who are former Mormons, or never were Mormons (yet you claim to know what we believe regarding this thread) ---- you will cite or quote some source and throw the Latter Day Saints’ way that this what I believe??

I further understand that it is your intention to, for whatever your motivation is to state what I and other Latter Day Saints believe regarding this thread. How about this recommendation?

Ask one of us versus the continuous drumbeat of inaccurate views regarding this thread.

Kind regards.

Don’t you want official LDS links to support statement about LDS beliefs? It’s why I use them, to show what either past or present day LDS leaders have or are saying? Why do official LDS links bother you?

My citing JP11, is my way of supporting what has been taught by Catholic leaders, and for the same reason as quoting or linking LDS leaders, I do the same.

It’s called documentation and is a legit, often necessary to show that what one has said is not a personally held belief, but is an actual teaching of either church.

(I’m a bit confused, also, I thought you had put me on ignore? )

 

[Marie5890]

It is great you quote a actual official LDS source versus the created views that I see regularly on the forums. Not angry or offended — I accept there are folks who have issues with the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints.

Kind regards.

I was the one posting that link to Gospel Principle’s manual on exhaltation.

Does it bother you or not bother you when documentation is given to show what actual leaders, or official teachings, Mormon or Catholic, have actually said.

And we accept, CourtingTex, that you have issues with Catholicism.

It does make me wonder what keeps you here, though, since it seems to trouble you, and you seem to feel like people keep telling you to go to confession and return to Mass

I admit though, I have not seen anyone do that to you, but I don’t read every thread.

 

[CourtingTex]

Don’t you want official LDS links to support statement about LDS beliefs? It’s why I use them, to show what either past or present day LDS leaders have or are saying? Why do official LDS links bother you?

My citing JP11, is my way of supporting what has been taught by Catholic leaders, and for the same reason as quoting or linking LDS leaders, I do the same.

It’s called documentation and is a legit, often necessary to show that what one has said is not a personally held belief, but is an actual teaching of either church.

(I’m a bit confused, also, I thought you had put me on ignore? )

I welcome using official actual LDS sources versus the usual statements I see on the forums so I am not bothered at all. Apparently you are a former Mormon or never were a Mormon and can cite actual official LDS sources. Good for you versus what I generally see on the forums, which to say is those folks’ choice to see what they will about my church ---- I lose no sleep or am not offended at all.

Kind regards.

 

[Horton]

It continues to amaze me with those of you who are former Mormons, or never were Mormons (yet you claim to know what we believe regarding this thread) ---- you will cite or quote some source and throw the Latter Day Saints’ way that this what I believe??

I further understand that it is your intention to, for whatever your motivation is to state what I and other Latter Day Saints believe regarding this thread. How about this recommendation?

Ask one of us versus the continuous drumbeat of inaccurate views regarding this thread.

Kind regards.

I have asked a question but have yet to receive an answer. How is the contradiction of only married men can be exalted but yet Jesus not being married and exalted explained? I’m not telling you what you believe I’m asking what you think the answer is, an everyday practicing LDS. Quoting LDS writings are meaningless to me for obvious reasons and they don’t tell me what an LDS person THINKS about this contradiction.

 

[CourtingTex]

I have asked a question but have yet to receive an answer. How is the contradiction of only married men can be exalted but yet Jesus not being married and exalted explained? I’m not telling you what you believe I’m asking what you think the answer is, an everyday practicing LDS. Quoting LDS writings are meaningless to me for obvious reasons and they don’t tell me what an LDS person THINKS about this contradiction.

First of all, I am not a paid spokesperson for the church who can answer or refer to official sources about your question. I believe in Jesus and know he is the son of God. I do not believe that Jesus was ever married and my understanding of the scriptures and what the ancient prophets, again the scriptures and what the modern prophets have said which is nothing about Jesus being married.

 

[JMM1957]

First of all, I am not a paid spokesperson for the church who can answer or refer to official sources about your question. I believe in Jesus and know he is the son of God. I do not believe that Jesus was ever married and my understanding of the scriptures and what the ancient prophets, again the scriptures and what the modern prophets have said which is nothing about Jesus being married.

And neither is any other average person in the pews a paid spokesman for their particular denomination, but the Bible does say this: (Granted these verses are talkiing about Christian suffering for the Word, but it still applies in this case)

13
Now who is going to harm you if you are enthusiastic for what is good?
14
But even if you should suffer because of righteousness, blessed are you. Do not be afraid or terrified with fear of them,
15
but sanctify Christ as Lord in your hearts. Always be ready to give an explanation to anyone who asks you for a reason for your hope,
16
but do it with gentleness and reverence, keeping your conscience clear, so that, when you are maligned, those who defame your good conduct in Christ may themselves be put to shame.

In all the threads here on CAF that I have been involved with in the past, dealing with Mormon teachings, it seems to me that there can be many differing “opinions” regarding Mormon doctrine when you ask various LDS members. Some of these opinions are outright contradictions to what is in official LDS sources. Or when you pin down these same people for a strict answer, they will sometimes even say that it doesn’t really matter, or we don’t need to worry about those things right now, or its just speculation. This happens way more than it seems it should, which seems puzzling to me to say the least.

 

[CourtingTex]

And neither is any other average person in the pews a paid spokesman for their particular denomination, but the Bible does say this: (Granted these verses are talkiing about Christian suffering for the Word, but it still applies in this case)

13
Now who is going to harm you if you are enthusiastic for what is good?
14
But even if you should suffer because of righteousness, blessed are you. Do not be afraid or terrified with fear of them,
15
but sanctify Christ as Lord in your hearts. Always be ready to give an explanation to anyone who asks you for a reason for your hope,
16
but do it with gentleness and reverence, keeping your conscience clear, so that, when you are maligned, those who defame your good conduct in Christ may themselves be put to shame.

In all the threads here on CAF that I have been involved with in the past, dealing with Mormon teachings, it seems to me that there can be many differing “opinions” regarding Mormon doctrine when you ask various LDS members. Some of these opinions are outright contradictions to what is in official LDS sources. Or when you pin down these same people for a strict answer, they will sometimes even say that it doesn’t really matter, or we don’t need to worry about those things right now, or its just speculation. This happens way more than it seems it should, which seems puzzling to me to say the least.

And those differing views are the individual members (obviously all the Latter Day Saints (Mormons) on the forums do not all speak the same.

Speaking for myself, official LDS doctrine from Salt Lake City is what I believe and a conviction of through the Holy Ghost.

This view could be similar to Catholics ---- no at all Catholics walk in total loyalty to Rome.

 

[TOmNossor]

In all the threads here on CAF that I have been involved with in the past, dealing with Mormon teachings, it seems to me that there can be many differing “opinions” regarding Mormon doctrine when you ask various LDS members. Some of these opinions are outright contradictions to what is in official LDS sources. Or when you pin down these same people for a strict answer, they will sometimes even say that it doesn’t really matter, or we don’t need to worry about those things right now, or its just speculation. This happens way more than it seems it should, which seems puzzling to me to say the least

I am interested in what and who contradicted “official LDS sources.”
In truth I think your understanding of “official LDS sources” might be the problem.
Is the Pope an “official Catholic source?” What about the words of past Popes? What about the words of “Doctors of the Church” or the words of Canonized Saints, or the words of the ECF.
I suspect you know that none of those things are without error based on Catholic understanding of Catholic doctrine. What about the statements published from the 21 Eccumincial Councils? What about the words in the modern CCC? What about the words in the Baltimore CCC or the Trent CCC? The answer to these question from a Catholic perspective are more complex.
LDS do not have doctrinal publications that are analogous to the CCC. The results of our councils are new revelations which occasionally are doctrinal in nature. This also creates more fluidity that in the Catholic Church (which has substantial “development” which is fluidity too, just less).

So like the Catholic Church, there are limiting factors that define our doctrine. More than the Catholic Church there is fluidity. But unlike the Catholic Church, LDS do not claim to possess infallible doctrine. The BOM even claims that if there are errors in it, it is because of the “mistakes of men” not of God. While the LDS have an extraordinary high view of man’s origins and destiny, we also recognize our current fallibility in ways rejected by the Catholic Church when it comes to defining doctrine (again in certain limited circumstances).
If you are interested in what this more hard to define source of our doctrine is, here is a good essay from the church:
Approaching Mormon Doctrine

Here is a quote:

Not every statement made by a Church leader, past or present, necessarily constitutes doctrine. A single statement made by a single leader on a single occasion often represents a personal, though well-considered, opinion, but is not meant to be officially binding for the whole Church. With divine inspiration, the First Presidency (the prophet and his two counselors) and the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles (the second-highest governing body of the Church) counsel together to establish doctrine that is consistently proclaimed in official Church publications. This doctrine resides in the four “standard works” of scripture (the Holy Bible, the Book of Mormon, the Doctrine and Covenants and the Pearl of Great Price), official declarations and proclamations, and the Articles of Faith. Isolated statements are often taken out of context, leaving their original meaning distorted.
Some doctrines are more important than others and might be considered core doctrines. For example, the precise location of the Garden of Eden is far less important than doctrine about Jesus Christ and His atoning sacrifice. The mistake that public commentators often make is taking an obscure teaching that is peripheral to the Church’s purpose and placing it at the very center. This is especially common among reporters or researchers who rely on how other Christians interpret Latter-day Saint doctrine.

Charity, TOm