Mormons search the web and find doubt

[Marie5890]

Many times it was not the teacher who brought it up, but rather the know-it-all member of the ward who always brings up “crazy stuff” in Gospel Doctrine (there is always one). The general consensus of the class was always that even though we may not know for sure, Jesus was the groom at the wedding of Cana.

My experience was a bit different than your when I was at BYU in the 80s’, but perhaps it has become a belief that is under development with in the culture now.

It wasnt, at least in my experience, back then

 

[iepuras]

My experience was a bit different than your when I was at BYU in the 80s’, but perhaps it has become a belief that is under development with in the culture now.

It wasnt, at least in my experience, back then

As I have learned about the experiences of other ex-Mormons on this forum and others, I find that there are often differences in experiences and teachings between the generations. As PaulDupre1 and others have mentioned, they were taught that Jesus was a polygamist. I never heard about that teaching until I was an ex-Mormon. I guess the suits in SLC really stamped out that teaching. I learned that Jesus was most likely married due to the culture and that Mary Magdalene was probably his wife. She was the first one to see Jesus after the Resurrection after all. But I never heard that Jesus was a polygamist and married to Mary and Martha of Bethany.

Maybe I happened to be in wards that just happened to talk about the “crazy stuff” of my generation. I don’t know. I can tell you that as a Mormon, I was taught and believed that the wedding of Cana was most likely Jesus’ wedding and that he was most likely married to Mary Magdalene.

 

[NeuroTypical]

Ah, the well-worn “I never heard that” dodge. Come on, NT, if BY taught it and all of us ex-Mos were taught it, do you really expect us to believe that you never heard this at church?

Wow Paul, I didn’t really expect to be attacked for just sharing my experience.

Do you really think I’m lying or delusional or something? And again, I’m not claiming I have never encountered the notion, just that it was never taught to me.

 

[twopekinguys]

Wow Paul, I didn’t really expect to be attacked for just sharing my experience.

Do you really think I’m lying or delusional or something? And again, I’m not claiming I have never encountered the notion, just that it was never taught to me.

Trust me, that was far from an attack. It was more a statement of utter disbelief.

Over the years, we have all seen the stereotypical posts/responses used by mormon posters, and he was merely pointing that out.

We have also seen the “persecution” card used over and over, with little to no success.

Believe me, if you are ever “attacked”, it will be quite evident.

 

[Marie5890]

I guess the suits in SLC really stamped out that teaching. I learned that Jesus was most likely married due to the culture and that Mary Magdalene was probably his wife. She was the first one to see Jesus after the Resurrection after all. But I never heard that Jesus was a polygamist and married to Mary and Martha of Bethany.

Yes, I heard that a lot, too. Not hard fast doctrine, but certainly well believed in the culture and pretty much excepted…

Never really heard the polygamist claim, but that one wouldnt surprise me.

Like you, the whole Cana was his wedding thing wasnt something out there were I was

 

[RebeccaJ]

I do not believe this, and can’t really find any reason to believe it. I don’t know any Mormons who believe this. In my ~37 active LDS years spanning ~8 wards in two states, I have never been taught this. In my callings as sunday school teacher or Gospel principles teacher, I have never taught it, or ever seen any source that asked me to teach it.

I have, over the decades, occasionally run into a small handful of mormons who speculate about it or believe it. Maybe a dozen or so. I heard one lady point to the fact, that scripture doesn’t explicitly say Jesus did not get married, and to her, that was “strong evidence” in her mind that it was Jesus’ wedding.

Marriage is after all a required ordinance to become a god, and I’ve never heard a Mormon say that Jesus skipped required ordinances.

Jesus has one bride, His Church. There is no need for a Mormon sealing of His bride to Himself.

 

[PaulDupre1]

I do not believe this, and can’t really find any reason to believe it. I don’t know any Mormons who believe this. In my ~37 active LDS years spanning ~8 wards in two states, I have never been taught this. In my callings as sunday school teacher or Gospel principles teacher, I have never taught it, or ever seen any source that asked me to teach it.

I have, over the decades, occasionally run into a small handful of mormons who speculate about it or believe it. Maybe a dozen or so. I heard one lady point to the fact, that scripture doesn’t explicitly say Jesus did not get married, and to her, that was “strong evidence” in her mind that it was Jesus’ wedding.

We frequently get this from Mormons - the idea that “some members have speculated that…” when actually it was authoritatively taught by the General Authorities until fairly recently.

This is but a tiny sample of the documentation, in roughly chronological order.

1) Jesus was a polygamist, married to Mary Magdalene, Mary and Martha the sisters of Lazarus, and perhaps others. Also, Jesus had children.

“I discover that some of the Eastern papers represent me as a great blasphemer, because I said, in my lecture on Marriage, at our last Conference, that Jesus Christ was married at Cana of Galilee, that Mary, Martha, and others were his wives, and that he begat children.”
(President Brigham Young, Journal of Discourses, v2, p210)

“It will be borne in mind that once on a time, there was a marriage in Cana of Galilee; and on a careful reading of that transaction, it will be discovered that no less a person than Jesus Christ was married on that occasion. If he was never married, his intimacy with Mary and Martha [the sisters of Lazarus] and the other Mary also whom Jesus loved [Mary Magdelene], must have been highly unbecoming and improper to say the best of it.”
(Apostle Orson Hyde, Journal of Discourses 4:259)

One thing is certain, that there were several holy women that greatly loved Jesus - such as Mary, and Martha her sister, and Mary Magdalene; and Jesus greatly loved them, and associated with them much; and when He arose from the dead, instead of first showing Himself to His chosen witnesses, the Apostles, He appeared first to these women, or at least to one of them - namely, Mary Magdalene. Now, it would be very natural for a husband in the resurrection to appear first to his own dear wives, and afterwards show himself to his other friends. If all the acts of Jesus were written, we no doubt should learn that these beloved women were his wives. (Apostle Orson Pratt, The Seer, p. 159)

“We say it was Jesus Christ who was married, to be brought into the relation whereby he could see his seed, before He was crucified. “Has he indeed passed by the nature of angels, and taken upon himself the seed of Abraham, to die without leaving a seed to bear his name on the earth?” No. But when the secret is fully out, the seed of the blessed shall be gathered in, in the last days; and he who has not the blood of Abraham flowing in his veins, who has not one particle of the Saviour’s in him, I am afraid is a stereotyped Gentile, who will be left out and not be gathered in the last days; for I tell you it is the chosen of God, the seed of the blessed, that shall be gathered.”
(Apostle Orson Hyde, Journal of Discourses 2:82)

2) Jesus and the apostles were persecuted and killed for being polygamists.

“The grand reason of the burst of public sentiment in anathemas upon Christ and his disciples, causing his crucifixion, was evidently based upon polygamy, according to the testimony of the philosophers who rose in that age. A belief in the doctrine of a plurality of wives caused the persecution of Jesus and his followers. We might almost think they were Mormons."
(Prophet Jedediah M. Grant, Journal of Discourses, Vol.1, p.346, August 7, 1853)

3) Some early Mormon leaders were direct descendants of Jesus.

Joseph Smith was the first to reveal this teaching, when he informed the plural wife of Apostle Judge Adams, that the Apostle “was a literal descendant of Jesus Christ.” (Oliver B. Huntington Journal, p. 259)

Prophet Lorenzo Snow, and his counselor George Q. Cannon, later declared this doctrine publicly:

President George Q. Cannon also spoke … he said, “There are those in this audience who are descendants of the old Twelve Apostles - and shall I say it, yes, descendants of the Saviour Himself. His seed is represented in this body of men.”

Following Pres. Cannon, President Snow arose and said that what Bro. Cannon had stated respecting the literal descendants among this company of the old apostles and the Saviour himself is true - the Saviour’s seed is represented in this body of men. (Journal of Pres. Rudger Clawson, pp. 374-375)

So the idea that Jesus was plurally married and had children was not the idle speculation of some members as the Mormons of today would have us believe. When the living prophet teaches something, the members are expected to accept it and believe it.

The members during these times undoubtedly accepted and believed the teachings of their living prophet and apostles that Jesus was a polygamist and had children. And these beliefs persist among many Mormons to this day.

In Mormonism the future is known; it is the past that is always changing.

Paul (formerly LDS, now happily Catholic)

 

[TheIrishman]

I firmly believe that if Joseph Smith and Brigham Young were on the earth today and saw that LDS church as it is now, would not recognize it and would probably reject a lot of its teachings.

There is so much LDS history that isn’t being taught and is infact, being apologized for. Polygamy, blacks and the priesthood. people living on the sun, to even the word of wisdom. LDS member believe the LDS church came up with it…many churches came up with guidelines for their members before Joseph Smith. Take the story of the graham cracker for instance (very interesting). Anywho, i’m getting really tired of pretending that past doctrines were never taught or believed.

 

[PaulDupre1]

I firmly believe that if Joseph Smith and Brigham Young were on the earth today and saw that LDS church as it is now, would not recognize it and would probably reject a lot of its teachings.

There is so much LDS history that isn’t being taught and is infact, being apologized for. Polygamy, blacks and the priesthood. people living on the sun, to even the word of wisdom. LDS member believe the LDS church came up with it…many churches came up with guidelines for their members before Joseph Smith. Take the story of the graham cracker for instance (very interesting). Anywho, i’m getting really tired of pretending that past doctrines were never taught or believed.

And that is one of the foremost reasons that so many LDS are leaving. They are taught one version of their history, and then discover that the truth is far different from what they were taught.

So the member feels that (s)he has been lied to (and infantilized) by the leaders, so that (s)he can no longer trust anything the leaders say (or what the correlated manuals teach).

It is amazing to me that the leadership in SLC has not caught on to the fact that lying to your people (even by omission) doesn’t work any more in the information age. They must live in a very small bubble.

Paul (formerly LDS, now happily Catholic)

 

[NeuroTypical]

Hi Paul,

I’m reading everything you’re posting. Could I ask you to answer my question please?

 

[PaulDupre1]

Hi Paul,

I’m reading everything you’re posting. Could I ask you to answer my question please?

If you mean are you “lying or delusional or something”, I think you are exercising selective memory - something Mormons do often. My own brother claims to have never heard now-downplayed teachings that we sat together in SS and heard clearly taught. Mormons are constantly battling mentally crippling cognitive dissonance to the extent that they become dissociated from their own memories and experiences in order to maintain their testimonies.

I am truly sorry for all of you, I know what you are going through; I’ve been there.

And if you didn’t know that Jesus being married at Cana was authoritatively taught by your GAs then you know very little about your faith.

Paul

 

[NeuroTypical]

Thanks for the answer Paul.

 

[PaulDupre1]

You’re welcome.

 

[Captain_America]

I firmly believe that if Joseph Smith and Brigham Young were on the earth today and saw that LDS church as it is now, would not recognize it and would probably reject a lot of its teachings.

There is so much LDS history that isn’t being taught and is infact, being apologized for. Polygamy, blacks and the priesthood. people living on the sun, to even the word of wisdom. LDS member believe the LDS church came up with it…many churches came up with guidelines for their members before Joseph Smith. Take the story of the graham cracker for instance (very interesting). Anywho, i’m getting really tired of pretending that past doctrines were never taught or believed.

. . .People living on the sun??? I had not heard that.

 

[PaulDupre1]

. . .People living on the sun??? I had not heard that.

Yep, Brigham Young taught it publicly, claiming he learned it from Joseph Smith.

Paul (formerly LDS, now happily Catholic)

 

[iepuras]

. . .People living on the sun??? I had not heard that.

According to Brigham Young, there are also people who live on the moon.

 

[JHow]

John 2 would make no sense at all if it was Jesus’ wedding. His words, “what is that to me?”, the statement that he was invited, the fact that the head waiter goes to an un named bridegroom, the fact that Jesus leaves Cana afterward. To conclude that this text describes Jesus wedding you have to have no faith in the text and complete faith in whoever interpreted the text for you.

 

[PaulDupre1]

John 2 would make no sense at all if it was Jesus’ wedding. His words, “what is that to me?”, the statement that he was invited, the fact that the head waiter goes to an un named bridegroom, the fact that Jesus leaves Cana afterward. To conclude that this text describes Jesus wedding you have to have no faith in the text and complete faith in whoever interpreted the text for you.

Indeed. Who needs to be invited to his own wedding?

 

[Brandon_Cal]

As a boy I was taught that Jesus was a polygamist and begot children. I taught my own children that the Savior is married (sort of hard to get out of at least that given our beliefs concerning exaltation and marriage) and had begotten children while on this Earth. This was something we openly spoke of in church up until the early 70s or so when I first noticed the teaching become more arcane.

I don’t believe it has ever been clearly enunciated as an divinely revealed, matter of necessity teaching, even if it was once very widely believed by most (if not all) Mormons. I believe this is not unlike the Catholic Church’s (now diminished) teaching on Limbo: it was once widely taught, if not universally taught, among the Catholic faithful, and was seen as a satisfactory theological assumption to reconcile two seemingly contradictory facets of the Gospel. While the doctrinal arms of the Church no longer explicitly teach the doctrine, it has not ever been officially repudiated and so naturally there are still many who believe it.

 

[SteveVH]

As a boy I was taught that Jesus was a polygamist and begot children. I taught my own children that the Savior is married (sort of hard to get out of at least that given our beliefs concerning exaltation and marriage) and had begotten children while on this Earth. This was something we openly spoke of in church up until the early 70s or so when I first noticed the teaching become more arcane.

I don’t believe it has ever been clearly enunciated as an divinely revealed, matter of necessity teaching, even if it was once very widely believed by most (if not all) Mormons. This is not unlike the Catholic Church’s (now diminished) teaching on Limbo: it was once widely taught, if not universally taught, among the Catholic faithful, and was seen as a satisfactory theological assumption to reconcile two seemingly contradictory facets of the Gospel. While the doctrinal arms of the Church no longer explicitly teach the doctrine, it has not ever been officially repudiated and so naturally there are still many who believe it.

It has never been repudiated because it has never been a doctrine. It is a theological theory only and therefore no one has ever been obligated to believe it. You are correct however, that many of the Catholic faithful accepted it as truth. Not so much anymore.