What do Mormons Think of Mary - Mother of Jesus

[Robert_in_SD]

Hello Friends;

Seeing as how the Catholic Church just celebrated the birthday of the Blessed Virgin Mary (Sept. 8) I’m curious to know what the LDS church teaches about the mother of Our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ? Specifically, do you believe any of the following Catholic doctrines…

(1) the Immaculate Conception (born without original sin)

(2) Mary’s perpetual virginity (even after Jesus’ birth - i.e. no siblings (or half-siblings to be more accurate))

(3) the Assumption - (at the end of her life, assumed into Heaven body and soul)

(4) Mary’s position as the Queen of Heaven (crowned Queen of Heaven by her Son who honored her with His glory in accordance with God’s Commandment - a powerful advocate to her Son on our behalf)

I would love to hear LDS beliefs/responses/doctrines on Mary.

Thanks

 

[Tmaque]

Robert in SD:

Hello Friends;

Seeing as how the Catholic Church just celebrated the birthday of the Blessed Virgin Mary (Sept. 8) I’m curious to know what the LDS church teaches about the mother of Our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ? Specifically, do you believe any of the following Catholic doctrines…

(1) the Immaculate Conception (born without original sin)

(2) Mary’s perpetual virginity (even after Jesus’ birth - i.e. no siblings (or half-siblings to be more accurate))

(3) the Assumption - (at the end of her life, assumed into Heaven body and soul)

(4) Mary’s position as the Queen of Heaven (crowned Queen of Heaven by her Son who honored her with His glory in accordance with God’s Commandment - a powerful advocate to her Son on our behalf)

I would love to hear LDS beliefs/responses/doctrines on Mary.

Thanks

I’m ex-LDS but I’ll throw my 2 cents in anyway.
LDS believe none of these things. The Blessed Virgin Mary holds no particular high place of esteem in LDS doctrine.

They do believe Mary was immaculately conceived because they believe we are all immaculately conceived. LDS totally reject the notion of original sin. They do however believe that the BVM sinned just like everyone else. They believe that Jesus was the only sinless human being to ever walk on the earth.

Just like many protestant groups, they don’t believe that Mary was ever-virgin and they believe she had other children.

I never heard of the assumption while I was LDS, so they do not believe in that

LDS definitely do not believe our Blessed Mother is the Queen of Heaven. They believe they have a heavenly Mother that bore them as spirit children. One cannot have two queens, can they?

 

[amgid]

quote=Robert in SD the Immaculate Conception (born without original sin)
[/quote]

No, we do not accept that. we believe that Mary’s birth was no different from anybody else’s

(2) Mary’s perpetual virginity (even after Jesus’ birth - i.e. no siblings (or half-siblings to be more accurate)

No, she was rightfully married to Joseph, and the New Testament tells us that they several other children together after the birth of Jesus. The NT further informs us that

Matthew 1:

24 Then Joseph being raised from sleep did as the angel of the Lord had bidden him, and took unto him his wife:

25 And knew her not till she had brought forth her afirstborn son: and he called his name JESUS.
“Knew her not” is a biblical expression meaning that they had no sexual relations prior to the birth of Jesus; the implications bewing that they did have sexual relations after the birth of Jesus

(3) the Assumption - (at the end of her life, assumed into Heaven body and soul)

LDS doctrine certainly allows for such a possibility. In LDS theology that is called “translation”. But we have no historical or documentary evidence that it happened in the case of Mary.

(4) Mary’s position as the Queen of Heaven (crowned Queen of Heaven by her Son who honored her with His glory in accordance with God’s Commandment - a powerful advocate to her Son on our behalf)

No, LDS doctrine does not accept such a doctrine.

I would love to hear LDS beliefs/responses/doctrines on Mary.

LDS certainly have very high regard for Mary as the Mother of the Lord. The following scriptures from LDS scripture contain the essence of LDS belief concerning Mary:

1 Nephi 11:

13 And it came to pass that I looked and beheld the great city of Jerusalem, and also other cities. And I beheld the city of Nazareth; and in the city of Nazareth I beheld a virgin, and she was exceedingly fair and white.

14 And it came to pass that I saw the heavens open; and an angel came down and stood before me; and he said unto me: Nephi, what beholdest thou?

15 And I said unto him: A virgin, most beautiful and fair above all other virgins.

16 And he said unto me: Knowest thou the condescension of God?

17 And I said unto him: I know that he loveth his children; nevertheless, I do not know the meaning of all things.

18 And he said unto me: Behold, the virgin whom thou seest is the mother of the Son of God, after the manner of the flesh.

19 And it came to pass that I beheld that she was carried away in the Spirit; and after she had been carried away in the Spirit for the space of a time the angel spake unto me, saying: Look!

20 And I looked and beheld the virgin again, bearing a child in her arms.

21 And the angel said unto me: Behold the Lamb of God, yea, even the Son of the Eternal Father!..

Alma 7:

10 And behold, he shall be born of Mary, at Jerusalem which is the land of our forefathers, she being a virgin, a precious and chosen vessel, who shall be overshadowed and conceive by the power of the Holy Ghost, and bring forth a son, yea, even the Son of God.
amgid

 

[BJ_Colbert]

Of course we do believe she was a virgin when she bore Jesus, and after that the Bible does not elaborate on Mary’s life. A couple of places(like the boy Jesus at the Temple) say “Mary pondered on these things” or some such thing, and she was at the crucifiction.
I don’t think we(LDS) really know any of the things the Catholics claim, I guess it must all be in the Catholic Bible.
I would like to know where they found all of the detail that they have about Mary. Everything you claim may be true, we just do not have scripture to tell us that it is.
I know that one of the Popes decided that since there were no bones found that she must have been assumed to heaven.
I have been told to read “Hail Holy Queen”, The Amazing Secret of Souls in Purgatory" and “Interview with Maria Simma”.
I know there are books, but those are written by men and are not scripture. Is there a specific scripture or book in the Catholic Bible that tells all of Mary’s life and death as believed by the Catholic Church?
BJ

 

[Tmaque]

amgid:

10 And behold, he shall be born of Mary, at Jerusalem which is the land of our forefathers, she being a virgin, a precious and chosen vessel, who shall be overshadowed and conceive by the power of the Holy Ghost, and bring forth a son, yea, even the Son of God.

[/INDENT]
amgid

Jesus was born in Bethlehem, not in Jerusalem.

 

[Tmaque]

amgid:

25 And knew her not till she had brought forth her afirstborn son: and he called his name JESUS.

[/INDENT]
“Knew her not” is a biblical expression meaning that they had no sexual relations prior to the birth of Jesus; the implications bewing that they did have sexual relations after the birth of Jesus

Throughout the Bible, the word “until” is not used to imply that an action occurs after a particular point in time(like modern english). It simply states that the action continued up to a particular point in time. It has no reference to the future at all. “knew her not until she brought forth her firstborn son” doesn’t necessarily mean that he knew her after the event took place.

A few examples, there are more…

For example, in 2 Samuel 6:23 we find the line “Michal the daughter of Saul had not children until the day of her death.” Does this mean that she had children after she died?

In the account of the book of Genesis of the universal flood, it is said “and the raven did not return to the ark until the water had receded from the earth” (Genesis 8:6), but it did not return even after this.

 

[PaulDupre]

Thanks, Todd. You beat me to it.
Paul

 

[PaulDupre]

BJ Colbert:

I don’t think we(LDS) really know any of the things the Catholics claim, I guess it must all be in the Catholic Bible.

You’re in a nasty mood today, aren’t you? Why do you say things like this when you know full well that the “Catholic Bible” is the same as your bible, except we retained the 7 Old Testament books that the Protestants took out. Our New Testament is the same as yours and you know that.

I would like to know where they found all of the detail that they have about Mary.

These things were handed down to us from the apostles through the unbroken line of their successors the bishops for 2000 years.

Everything you claim may be true, we just do not have scripture to tell us that it is.

No, but we have the sacred tradition handed down from the apostles.

 

[Thomas_More_1]

BJ Colbert:

I know there are books, but those are written by men and are not scripture. Is there a specific scripture or book in the Catholic Bible that tells all of Mary’s life and death as believed by the Catholic Church?
BJ

This is kind of weird coming from an LDS. The book of Mormon teaches that God is eternal, and that there is a final judgment after death.

“I know that God is not a partial God, neither a changeable being; but he is unchangeable from all eternity to all eternity” (Moroni 8:18).

2 Nephi 9:15: “And it shall come to pass that when all men shall have passed from this first death unto life, insomuch as they have become immortal, they must appear before the judgment seat of the Holy One of Israel, and then cometh the judgment and then must they be judged according to the holy judgment of God. For the Lord God hath spoken it, and it is his eternal word, which cannot pass away, that they who are righteous shall be righteous still, and they who are filthy shall be filthy still; wherefore, they who are filthy . . . shall go away into everlasting fire, prepared for them; and their torment is as a lake of fire and brimstone, whose flame ascendeth up forever and ever and has no end.”

Still, Mormons believe in a god who was once a man and is still made of flesh and bones, and in countless other gods (though they only worship the three gods of their split up trinity, as I understand it), and they practice baptism by proxy for those who are already dead.

I don’t want to sound uncharitable, but hearing the “where is that in Scripture?” question from a Mormon is hilarious. Especially since y’all admit that much of (or even everything?) that Joseph Smith said and wrote is revelation and believe in the continuing revelation of your leaders throughout recent history.

 

[MEP]

Tmaque:

For example, in 2 Samuel 6:23 we find the line “Michal the daughter of Saul had not children until the day of her death.” Does this mean that she had children after she died?

You know, with the whole celestial marriage thing, Mormons might believe she did have children after her death. I hate to provide them with that argument, but it’s kind of easy.

I thought the immaculate conception did have a scriptural basis. It states in the bible that Mary was specially chosen by God because of her sinless nature and her obedience to his will. I find it odd that anyone would take issue with that belief.

As for Mary being ever-virgin… I’m not sure what to think about that myself (as a Catholic). She was married after all, it’s not like it would be a sin. I know the church believes it, but I’ve never understood why it mattered since she was, after all, married.

As for the assumption, that’s church tradition, handed down through the generations of bishops (first written reference is somewhere in the second century I believe (don’t take that as gosepl truth though), but there is historical evidence to support that the church has taught about the assumption of Mary since before the death of the final apostle).

I think the “queen of heaven” thing is very poorly phrased so far. It’s not a postition of authority in the sense that “queen” usually indicates and this is exactly the kind of thing that leads non-catholics to believe that we worship Mary as a deified being. Mary is the second mother of all man kind (Eve being the first). Through Eve, we were born into original sin. Through Mary’s motherhood of Christ, we are all born into eternal salvation. She is the mother of the Lord of our salvation and is thus a mother to our salvation, the spiritual mother of us all. She is a mother to all and an advocate for our sake, not a ruler.

She is also the first Christian, being the first human being on Earth to accept Christ. Of course, Mormons believe Adam was told about the coming of Christ, so I guess they wouldn’t buy into that.

 

[BJ_Colbert]

PaulDupre:

You’re in a nasty mood today, aren’t you? Why do you say things like this when you know full well that the “Catholic Bible” is the same as your bible, except we retained the 7 Old Testament books that the Protestants took out. Our New Testament is the same as yours and you know that.

These things were handed down to us from the apostles through the unbroken line of their successors the bishops for 2000 years.

No, but we have the sacred tradition handed down from the apostles.

Sorry, didn’t mean to sound nasty. I have never read those 7 books in the Catholic bible, so I thought they might contain the life of Mary. I sincerely want to know which book the history of Mary’s life is written in. It can’t just be handed down through the centuries by word of mouth. How do you teach your children about Mary without a book? Who wrote the book? If there is one. The answers so far sound like there is no book to find it in.
Thomas More, why is it wierd to ask if there is a book telling of Mary’s life?
MEP, thank you for your remarks, interesting, I really have never thought of Mary very deeply. I just know she was a virgin and the Mother of Jesus Christ. That is all I know about Mary. I would like to know more, if someone can tell me where the official Church record is about her life, I would buy it and read it.
Thanks to anyone who knows and can tell me.
BJ

 

[TOmNossor]

BJ,
The perpetual virginity of Mary has very ancient roots in the Early Church. It was sealed by the first Lateran Council and became dogma (what Catholics must believe) in 649AD.

When I tried to determine if I could believe this, I concluded that I could in fact embrace this (if I were Catholic).

There is a very early writing called the Protoevangelium of St. James. It was written about 125AD and explains that Mary was a committed (generally) virgin and was given to marry Joseph a widower. Joseph was older and was to protect her and her virginity. Partially deriving from this account I believe comes the theory that the brother’s of Jesus were Joseph’s children. This was the most popular orthodox view until the 5th century.

In the 5th century AD St. Jerome was particularly unsatisfied with this concept and the now popular cousins of Jesus theory stems from him. I had previously thought his problem was similar to Aquinas in that he was uncomfortable suggesting that Mary took a “vow of virginity” which would seem to be prohibited by Dt 7:14(Aquinas lists Dt 7:14, 1 Cor 7:25, and 1 Tim 5:12; but I had only remember Jerome being concerned with Deuteronomy). I am not so sure this was his issue any longer, but he does seem to be responsible for the emergence of the now popular cousins theory. (Augustine before Jerome had no problem with a “vow of virginity” for Mary).

Aquinas defends the idea that Mary could have taken a non-absolute vow of virginity, and then when God makes it clear what she is to do, she could absolutely vow to remain a virgin.

One of the more interesting recent (2002) discoveries is a bone box that says it contains the bones of “James, son of Joseph, brother of Jesus.” Before and after this my preferred view was that “half-brother” was the best Catholic solution on account of its very early witness, but as this ossuary is further verified, it seems to only strengthen the half brother idea. Catholics are free to believe either as I understand (or rather they must believe that Mary was ever virgin).

The internet is a great source for all of this and the Protoevagelium of St. James is an interesting read and the www.newadvent.org has a lot of interesting things on it.

The perpetual virginity of Mary is pretty solid in the early church. The Bible is not simple to rectify with Mary’s perpetual virginity. But on the whole, I do not find it to have much to say about the Catholic truth claims, either for or against.

BTW, one of the more interesting LDS stories I heard about Mary is that Elder McConkie repeatedly asked that a chapter in a book he was reviewing be omitted or changed because he was uncomfortable with the way the author spoke about Christ’s mother. I knew McConkie was a secret fan of the Catholics!!!

Charity, TOm

 

[amgid]

Tmaque:

Jesus was born in Bethlehem, not in Jerusalem.

If you read the Book of Mormon carefully enough, you will find that after a couple of hundred years of Nephite history, the expression “the land of Jerusalem” begins to be used consistently in the book to refer to the whole of Palestine where their ancestors had originated from, and not just to the city of Jerusalem.

Throughout the Bible, the word “until” is not used to imply that an action occurs after a particular point in time(like modern english). It simply states that the action continued up to a particular point in time. It has no reference to the future at all. “knew her not until she brought forth her firstborn son” doesn’t necessarily mean that he knew her after the event took place.

“Until” means “to the end of the appointed period, but not after”. The context determines how the word is to be understood. In this case it is obvious enough that the context implies that he “knew her not” until she gave birth to Jesus, meaning that afterwards did. Besides, the angel had specifically commanded Joseph to “take Mary to wife,” and that is what it means to “take someone to wife”.

In ancient Hebrew biblical culture, lawful sex what not regarded as some kind of a sinful thing. Those are the connotations that it acquired later on as the Christian church apostatized form the original teachings. In traditional Christian culture (especially Catholic culture), sex is viewed as some kind of unclean or unholy thing. A celibate life is considered preferable to a married one. Well, that may be Catholic, but certainly not biblical, and definitely not “Hebrew”. The first thing that God did after creating man is to create a female companion for him, saying, “It is not good that man should be alone” (Genesis 2:18). If it was not good then that man should be alone, it can’t be good now.

Furthermore, the NT makes it quite clear that Jesus had natural brothers and sisters or siblings, who could have only been begotten through Joseph and Mary:

Matthew 13:

55 Is not this the carpenter’s son? is not his mother called Mary? and his brethren, James, and Joses, and Simon, and Judas?

56 And his sisters, are they not all with us? Whence then hath this man all these things?

Mark 6:

3 Is not this the carpenter, the son of Mary, the brother of James, and Joses, and of Juda, and Simon? and are not his sisters here with us? And they were offended at him.
These verses make it indisputably clear that Jesus was considered to have brothers and sisters who were considered to be of the same parentage as himself—i.e. Joseph and Mary.

A few examples, there are more…

For example, in 2 Samuel 6:23 we find the line “Michal the daughter of Saul had not children until the day of her death.” Does this mean that she had children after she died?

The context determines the meaning in each case. In this case, the context clearly implies to the end of her life, which means of course that she didn’t have any children in her lifetime.

In the account of the book of Genesis of the universal flood, it is said “and the raven did not return to the ark until the water had receded from the earth” (Genesis 8:6), but it did not return even after this.

I don’t know which version of the Bible you are using, but the KJV, which is an extremely literal translation, and renders it as close to the original as possible, says it like this:

Genesis 8:

6 And it came to pass at the end of forty days, that Noah opened the window of the ark which he had made:

7 And he sent forth a raven, which went forth to and fro, until the waters were dried up from off the earth.

8 Also he sent forth a dove from him, to see if the waters were abated from off the face of the ground;

This does not support your reading. You had also got the verse number wrong, so perhaps you are not quoting it accurately. In any case, if you want to look at it that way, for every one verse you can find me to support your view, I can find you a dozen verses supporting my interpretation. Here are a few:

(Continued in the next post…)

amgid

 

[amgid]

(Continued from the previous post…)

And they said, We cannot, until all the flocks be gathered together, and till they roll the stone from the well’s mouth; then we water the sheep.
Meaning that they did water the flock after they had rolled the stone away.

And Jacob was left alone; and there wrestled a man with him until the breaking of the day.
Meaning, of course, that he did not continue to wrestle with him after the breaking of the day.

And the children of Israel did eat manna forty years, until they came to a land inhabited; they did eat manna, until they came unto the borders of the land of Canaan.
Meaning, of course, they did not continue to eat manna after they came unto the borders of the land of Canaan.

And ye shall not go out of the door of the tabernacle of the congregation in seven days, until the days of your consecration be at an end: for seven days shall he consecrate you.
Meaning that they did go out of the door of the tabernacle of the congregation, after the seven day period of the consecration was fulfilled.

amgid

 

[Chris-WA]

“Until” means “to the end of the appointed period, but not after”. The context determines how the word is to be understood. In this case it is obvious enough that the context implies that he “knew her not” until she gave birth to Jesus, meaning that afterwards did. Besides, the angel had specifically commanded Joseph to “take Mary to wife,” and that is what it means to “take someone to wife”.

Amgid, what your saying is just plain incorrect. I think even Tom Nossor would agree with me on this one. Todd is correct in his explanation of what the bible means in its use of the word “until.” You are using a modern English understanding, which is different than what is used in ancient scripture.

In ancient Hebrew biblical culture, lawful sex what not regarded as some kind of a sinful thing. Those are the connotations that it acquired later on as the Christian church apostatized form the original teachings. In traditional Christian culture (especially Catholic culture), sex is viewed as some kind of unclean or unholy thing. A celibate life is considered preferable to a married one. Well, that may be Catholic, but certainly not biblical, and definitely not “Hebrew”.

Again, wrong. First of all, the Catholic Church does not regard human sexuality as unclean or unholy. Exactly the opposite is true. You are making a rediculous statement here. If you really want to know the Catholic view of sexuality, I suggest you read Pope John Paul II’s Theology of the Body or Pope Paul VI’s Humanae Vitae. These will clear up your misconceptions.

Your statement about celibacy vs. married life in scripture is also blatently wrong. Scripture certainly gives us the notion that some are called to marriage, and some are called to celibacy. Each one is holy and has its merits. Look at what Jesus says regarding marriage in Matthew Chapter 19 vs 12:Some are incapable of marriage because they were born so; some, because they were made so by others; some, because they have renounced marriage for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. Whoever can accept this ought to accept it.

What does St. Paul tell us? I suggest you read 1 Corinthians Chapter 7 in its entirety, and you will see that celibacy is acceptable and holy.

Furthermore, the NT makes it quite clear that Jesus had natural brothers and sisters or siblings, who could have only been begotten through Joseph and Mary:Matthew 13:

55 Is not this the carpenter’s son? is not his mother called Mary? and his brethren, James, and Joses, and Simon, and Judas?

56 And his sisters, are they not all with us? Whence then hath this man all these things?

Mark 6:

3 Is not this the carpenter, the son of Mary, the brother of James, and Joses, and of Juda, and Simon? and are not his sisters here with us? And they were offended at him.

These verses make it indisputably clear that Jesus was considered to have brothers and sisters who were considered to be of the same parentage as himself—i.e. Joseph and Mary.

No, Amgid, they do not. The bible in no way confirms that Mary and Joseph had other children. In fact, a thorough reading suggests the opposite. Here are a couple of reasons why:

1. In Hebrew the word for cousin is the same as brother. They are not distinguished. Catholic and Protestant scholars alike have acknowledged this and in the case of Jesus’ “brothers” or “sisters,” they understand this to mean “cousins” as was understood in ancient Hebrew. There is no record of Jesus having siblings.
2. On the cross, Jesus gave his mother to John, who cared for her the rest of her life. If Jesus had siblings, this would have been an insult to Jesus’ immediate family as the care of their mother would go to them.

 

[sara888]

**Furthermore, the NT makes it quite clear that Jesus had natural brothers and sisters or siblings, who could have only been begotten through Joseph and Mary:

Jesus is the only begotten son of God, He did not have any biological brothers or sisters . We are all brothers and sisters in Christ. Brethen, Brother, was always referred too as cousin, friend, etc., throughout the bible OT and NT. **

Sara

 

[amgid]

Chris-WA:

Amgid, what your saying is just plain incorrect…

What is the justification for the Catholic Church’s rule of enforced celibacy in the clergy? Paul specifically states that a requirement of a good bishop is that he should be married, and be able to govern his household well! (1 Timothy 3:1-5.) In modern scripture, the Lord has revealed:

D&C 49:

15 And again, verily I say unto you, that whoso forbiddeth to marry is not ordained of God, for marriage is ordained of God unto man.
You violate this law by forbidding your priesthood to marry. It is not even optional. This historically has been one of the greatest sources of evil in the Catholic Church. Much of the paedophilia and homosexuality that has been rampant among the Catholic clergy and monastic institutions throughout history would have been averted had this evil law not been in force. In the LDS Church, the unwritten law is that bishops should be married! I have yet to come across an LDS bishop or stake president that hasn’t been married. I doubt if there has ever been one!

amgid

 

[PaulDupre]

TOmNossor:

One of the more interesting recent (2002) discoveries is a bone box that says it contains the bones of “James, son of Joseph, brother of Jesus.” Before and after this my preferred view was that “half-brother” was the best Catholic solution on account of its very early witness, but as this ossuary is further verified, it seems to only strengthen the half brother idea.

Hi TOm,
In June 2003, the inscription on the bone box (called an ossuary) was declared a fake by the Israeli experts in charge of the research. The ossuary itself does actually date to the 1st century AD but the inscription is quite recent. That would explain why the Aramaic grammar of the inscription is so incorrect.

See www.csmonitor.com/2003/0619/p07s01-wome.html for the complete story.

God be with you,
Paul

 

[Tmaque]

amgid:

What is the justification for the Catholic Church’s rule of enforced celibacy in the clergy? …snip…
You violate this law by forbidding your priesthood to marry. It is not even optional. This historically has been one of the greatest sources of evil in the Catholic Church. Much of the paedophilia and homosexuality that has been rampant among the Catholic clergy and monastic institutions throughout history would have been averted had this evil law not been in force. In the LDS Church, the unwritten law is that bishops should be married! I have yet to come across an LDS bishop or stake president that hasn’t been married. I doubt if there has ever been one!

amgid

First of all celibacy is a discipline in only the Roman rite of the Catholic Church. I believe that in the other four primary rites it is not a requirement. The reason for this discipline in the Roman rite is very simple. Jesus himself asked those who could be celibate to do so, in order to focus on his kingdom.

Matthew 19,12 NAB
“Some are incapable of marriage because they were born so; some, because they were made so by others; some, because they have renounced marriage for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. Whoever can accept this ought to accept it.”
From the KJV : “He that is able to receive it, let him receive it”

Here Jesus is saying celibacy is a gift from God and whoever can receive it should recieve it. Jesus praises and recommends celibacy when it’s done for his kingdom.

Matthew 19,29 NAB
“And everyone who has given up houses or brothers or sisters or father or mother or **children ** or lands for the sake of my name will receive a hundred times more, and will inherit eternal life.”
Here Jesus says that whoever gives up children for the sake of His name will receive a hundred times more and will inherit eternal life. Certainly Jesus isn’t recommending people abandon thier children! No, Jesus is praising celibacy when it is done for the sake of His kingdom.

St. Paul believed very much in celibacy for clergy. 1 Corinthians Chapter 7, 1:
“Now in regard to the matters about which you wrote: It is a good thing for a man not to touch a woman,”
Here Paul is teaching that it is good for a man not to touch a woman. This is the choice that the Catholic priests of the Roman rite freely make.

1 Corinthians Chapter 7, 7:
“Indeed, I wish everyone to be as I am, but each has a particular gift from God, one of one kind and one of another.”
St Paul wishes every man were celibate like he is.

1 Corinthians Chapter 7, 27:
"Are you bound to a wife? Do not seek a separation. Are you free of a wife? Then do not look for a wife."
Paul is recommending that those who are unmarried remain unmarried if they have the self-control to do so.

1 Corinthians Chapter 7, 32-33, 38:
I should like you to be free of anxieties. An unmarried man is anxious about the things of the Lord, how he may please the Lord.
But a married man is anxious about the things of the world, how he may please his wife"“So then, the one who marries his virgin does well; the one who does not marry her will do better”
Paul is clearly recommending that those who want to truly serve the Lord remain celibate so their attention isn’t divided.

Finally, 1 Timothy 3,2:
“Therefore, a bishop must be irreproachable, married only once, temperate, self-controlled, decent, hospitable, able to teach”

As you can see the Bible doesn’t say a bishop must be married. It says that a Bishop should be married only once. The only possible meaning is that a bishop should not be a polygamist, or he should not remarry after he is widowed. It doesn’t say a bishop MUST be married. If that were the case almost all of the early bishops would have been disqualified because most weren’t married. And, given Jesus’ and Paul’s comments it’s clear that, at the very least celibacy is a good thing.

Amgid, you have a very unsophisticated and bigoted viewpoint toward the Catholic church. It’s unfortunate that you won’t step out of your LDS paradigm for a moment and try to see why a former devout LDS like me would leave the LDS Church after serving a mission, holding many church callings and having a strong testimony. Isn’t it just possible that I am a sincere honest person who, through a factual and spiritual process, came to an intellectually honest opinion that, although you disagree with, has at least some validity? Are you so narrow minded that you aren’t even a little curious? I’m very curious when a smart LDS like Tom chooses the LDS Church, when it’s so obvious to me that he’s wrong. I want to understand his thought process. I want to understand why he made the decision he did. And the more I understand it the more respect I gain for his thought process AND his sincerity. That is a GOOD thing. I hope you can understand that. God bless you Amgid.

 

[PaulDupre]

amgid:

What is the justification for the Catholic Church’s rule of enforced celibacy in the clergy? Paul specifically states that a requirement of a good bishop is that he should be married, and be able to govern his household well! (1 Timothy 3:1-5.) In modern scripture, the Lord has revealed:…

What Joseph Smith said is irrelevant. What St. Paul really taught is very relevant:
St. Paul says a bishop must be “the husband of one wife,” and “must manage his own household well, keeping his children submissive and respectful in every way; for if a man does not know how to manage his own household, how can he care for God’s Church?” (1 Tim. 3:2, 4–5). This means, you argue, that only a man who has demonstrably looked after a family is fit to care for God’s Church; an unmarried man, it is implied, is somehow untried or unproven.

This interpretation leads to obvious absurdities. For one, if “the husband of one wife” really meant that a bishop had to be married, then by the same logic “keeping his children submissive and respectful in every way” would mean that he had to have children. Childless husbands (or even fathers of only one child, since Paul uses the plural) would not qualify.

In fact, following this style of interpretation to its final absurdity, since Paul speaks of bishops meeting these requirements (not of their having met them, or of candidates for bishop meeting them), it would even follow that an ordained bishop whose wife or children died would become unqualified for ministry! Clearly such excessive literalism must be rejected.

The theory that Church leaders must be married also contradicts the obvious fact that Paul himself, an eminent Church leader, was single and happy to be so. Unless Paul was a hypocrite, he could hardly have imposed a requirement on bishops which he did not himself meet. Consider, too, the implications regarding Paul’s positive attitude toward celibacy in 1 Corinthians 7: the married have worldly anxieties and divided interests, yet only they are qualified to be bishops; whereas the unmarried have single-minded devotion to the Lord, yet are barred from ministry!

The suggestion that the unmarried man is somehow untried or unproven is equally absurd. Each vocation has its own proper challenges: the celibate man must exercise “self-control” (1 Cor. 7:9); the husband must love and care for his wife selflessly (Eph. 5:25); and the father must raise his children well (1 Tim. 3:4). Every man must meet Paul’s standard of “managing his household well,” even if his “household” is only himself. If anything, the chaste celibate man meets a higher standard than the respectable family man.

Clearly, the point of Paul’s requirement that a bishop be “the husband of one wife” is not that he must have one wife, but that he must have only one wife (not be divorced/remarried). Expressed conversely, Paul is saying that a bishop must not have unruly or undisciplined children (not that he must have children who are well behaved), and must not be married more than once (not that he must be married).

Continued…