Related Information to Jesus Married Mormon Doctrine

Jesus Married Mormon Doctrine - Page 5

It's not about the church being unacceptable to others, but keeping the fuel for the fire out of reaching hands. Even if it is true, how necessary is it in the big picture? It's necessary for Jesus Christ himself, but it's similar to the reason why we don't talk much about our heavenly mother.

Doctrine Mormon Married Jesus

Everyone: The subject of this Thread is based on Jesus being Married. Please do not go into off topics that are already discussed in the Mature LDS Board.

Jesus Married Mormon Doctrine Studies Doctrine Mormon

Here is something to consider... if Jesus had blood prosperity, then would they have any special powers being that their father was half-immortal? Considering that birth into the Tribe of Levi sets a level of 'authority' in itself, one has to wonder if birth from the line of the Messiah would also give any special 'authority'?

Page 5 Doctrine Mormon Married Jesus

Since there were claims that Joseph Smith was a direct descendent of Jesus Christ, perhaps there is something to that.

That is also the foundation of the "Holy Blood, Holy Grail" and "DaVinci Code" stories. The idea that the descendents of Jesus Christ have the natural authority to rule, hence the "Merovingian" line that supposedly has been a power in European history for centuries.

From an LDS point of view, I would think that it would still require that a person fully accept the principles and ordinances, and abide by them, in order for that ancestry to have an effect. But if those qualifications were met, then that person would, like Joseph Smith, enjoy special blessings.

Doctrine Mormon Married Jesus

Due to the pride and evil nature of Man one can see why such information would be kept hidden or 'coded' if you like.

Jesus Married Mormon Doctrine

Hi everyone. This is my first post, other than my welcome post. I look forward to many enlightening discussions with you.

It is true that the Church has not admitted this as doctrine. In this regard, it makes no difference to my personal salvation.

There has been much evidence given over the history of this Church. I have long felt that the wedding in John 2 was indeed Jesus' wedding. That He was allowed to preach in the Synagog, and that even non-members called Him Rabbi, are evidence as well.

However, I think that the most moving and compelling evidence is that Jesus appeared first to Mary Magdalene after He was resurrected.

There is no doubt He loved her and cared enough to show her first that He was alive.

There are other evidences as well. But, whether you believe it or not isn't directly reflective of your personal relationship with Him. So, the Church need not make an official declaration.

In any case, I feel 100% certain He was married. If you do not, your salvation is not in jeopardy.

Edited: Justice on 12th Sep, 2006 - 2:33pm

Jesus Married Mormon Doctrine - Page 5

Nighthawk, I've never heard this, I know Brigham Young said that Joseph Smith was a pure Ephriamite.

What I read somewhere that when the Pharisess called Jesus Rabbi (which is a term used for married men in the jewish faith).

Jesus Married Mormon Doctrine Mormon Doctrine Studies - Page 5

Re: Nathan C Taylor. I knew Nathan when we was in Leeds [England]. He visited my home in the company of a member whose BP requested me to advise regarding her views on plural marriage and the prophet's views, and we had an interesting evening's discussion about his 'fundamentalist' LDS view of how the Church should proceed today in matters such as maintaining plural marriage. Being strictly orthodox in matters of faith, doctrine, and policies, I differed from him. He moved to Bristol, and then moved on again after which we lost contact. I wrote a response to the article you quote above, which he published in the magazine he then edited. This was, I believe, sometime in the early nineties. Were I to revisit the subject there are some things I would phrase differently. For what it is worth, I reproduce it here.

WAS JESUS MARRIED?
A consideration of the evidence
By Ronnie Bray

Was Jesus married? An interesting question that has never been raised in the arena of scholarly Christology. Nevertheless, it raises interest by the very act of asking the question. There are three main schools of thought about the question: those who believe that he was not and could not have been. These are in the main from the mainstream of Christian scholarship. For them, the question is absurd. The absurdity may be seen as arising from the perspective that celibacy is the superior way of life, required by the Roman Church for several centuries.

And while the Protestant churches have cast off many of the trappings of Catholicism in their brief history, they have never entirely divested themselves of Catholic attitudes to sexuality, especially sexuality and spirituality and the bearing each has upon the other. The second group are those who do not know whether he was or not. They are, probably quire rightly, confused by the issues, and who can fail to be confused? The issues are far from clear. The final group is that which is in no doubt that Jesus was married.

This is an interesting group because of its composition. It is not found in the mainstream of Christianity. In fact, many from this group do not belong to Christianity at all, but are what may be described as side-line snipers; critics of Christianity (and most other religions), whose main purpose is to discomfort Christians by expressing volubly the unacceptable idea that Jesus was married and thereby enjoyed normal intimate relations with a woman. Some Jewish scholars present this perspective simply from the point of view that Jesus was a Jewish man although admittedly an extraordinary one.

To this group also belong some early Latter-day Saint theologians and, it should be said, some later ones. Their purpose is dictated by the need to demonstrate that Jesus must have been married. This theological necessity is determined by the Latter-day Saint understanding of exaltation and Godhood.

These three schools of thought are engaged in some sort of a debate without communicating with one another. Their positions are firmly entrenched and they do not yield. But, what evidence is there for these discrete positions?

Tatian, a Gnostic, and Basilides, an Alexandrian theologian with Gnostic tendencies, are said by some (Joyce, Donovan The Jesus Scroll, Sphere Books Ltd. London, 1973, p. 86) to have been the founders of the idea that Jesus was not married. "¦ What is the evidence for Jesus having been married or not married? Is there any evidence? It has to be admitted that the most often proposed argument in favour his having married is based on arguments from silence. For obvious reasons, these are never satisfactory; one has to jump to too many conclusions to accept them with any degree of enthusiasm.

Whilst the Judaic traditions required a father to ensure that his sons were circumcised, redeemed, acquire an education, a trade, and a wife, it is by no means certain that all Jewish boys were the beneficiaries of all these. Indeed, some might have none at all. Not all the B"nei Yisrael were deeply religious at the Meridian of Time, any more than the adherents or followers of any religion are.

Sanders holds that Paul was probably a zealot who had no time for marriage.( Sanders, EP Paul, OUP, 1981, Oxford) It could be argued that Jesus, like Paul had a specific and individual mission to perform, and that his mission precluded his marrying during mortality. That is, of course, speculative and speculation is the enemy of scholarship and often leads us far from truth. "¦

Recognising that it was not unusual for Jewish boys to have their education and religious and social duties overlooked by parents, together with the recognition that Jesus was by no means ordinary and that his unusual destiny was known to at least one of his parents, and probably to both according to the scriptural records, there is little room to feel sure that his life would follow the normative course for other boys of his generation.

The Torah (the Tanach was not in existence in Jesus" day) laid duties upon fathers to perform certain things for their sons. About Jesus, we can only be sure about his circumcision, although his religious education does not appear to have been neglected, as the interesting vignette of the twelve-year old shows.

If Jesus was married, why is there no reference to his wife or children? References to his family are limited to his mother and his brothers and sisters, although these have been carefully interpreted by Roman Catholics to be children of the reticent Joseph by a previous marriage. This is a legal fiction. Theological necessity produces many such fictions on the grounds that "It has to be because it must be!" Similarly, if we have to have Jesus married we will read the evidence, such as it is, to reach that conclusion. This can not be done except at the cost of truth, so we need to be circumspect and honest.

Orson Hyde taught that Jesus was married, and names Mary and Martha as having been his wives.(Journal of Discourses, volume 2, 10 June 1854) The reasoning behind his opinions is the same as those sideline snipers,(Baigent, Leigh, and Lincoln Holy Blood, Holy Grail, Dell Books) who aim to embarrass Christians.

What is the weight of his evidence? Are the snipers using sound judgement or creating a monster out of smoke? Both groups claim that the wedding feat at Cana was one of Jesus" marriages. As to his others they are all strangely silent. Their reasons for Jesus being the bridegroom at Cana are slight and unsure. They point out that Jesus was summoned to the wedding, as a bridegroom would have been. However, wedding guests were also summoned or invited to the feast, as detailed in the parable of the wedding guests.

This construction is less than convincing. To support their viewpoint it is pointed out that Jesus" mother asked him to supply the wine. Since the bridegroom had the responsibility to supply the wine, it is argued that the groom must indeed have been Jesus. However, Mary approached her son in extremis, after the initial supply of wine) supplied by the real bridegroom) had dried up. Although not expressed in the narrative of the Fourth Gospel, she was clearly asking him to use his supranatural power to provide further wine. He understood the request not as a bridegroom who had failed to asses the number of guests expected at his wedding - an unlikely event - but as one who had been called upon to perform, not a mere miracle, but a sign of his divinity.

The synopticists are significantly silent about this event. If it had been the marriage of Jesus is it likely that it would have failed to have been mentioned, at least By Matthew who is at pains to demonstrate the Jewishness of Jesus as the promised mashiach? "¦