- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
Tom Haws wrote:Poppyseed wrote:
How do you know that I see the “above approach” as a bad thing?
I’m really sorry Rix’s post hit you wrong, but I just assumed he was merely generously allowing for the possibility that you might see things differently from him. I think he was reserving judgment and merely allowing for the possibility.
Thanks Tom…you are exactly right. Of course most people I know don’t consider the “Jesus Story” as metaphor, so they most often view the different approach as inferior to the literal paradigm. I do profusely apologize if she thinks I was assuming I knew what her feelings were.
It’s very important to remember here in this community that we are sharing ideas and experiences from our individual and personal journeys. We are sharing what I call “reconciliation strategies” instead of trying to hash out what is correct and incorrect. From the StayLDS perspective, the right answers are the ones that work for people, answers that help rebuild faith. Of course included in that range is being sure of an answer as single and absolute. It is fine to reconcile that way too. But as a community, we are listening to each others’ stories.
I think Jesus certainly existed. There’s more evidence for him than many people of the same period. After all, if you weren’t a military or political leader, or royalty, you were very unlikely to be recorded at all. However, I think Jesus has been completely embellished and misrepresented. Jesus told us to love the poor and look after them, yet I see so called Christians using his religion to bring in measures which effectively punish the poor and/or make them poorer. How can we use Jesus to justify war, big business or out and out hatred? But people do.
I know in the COJCLDS, we’re supposed to say Jesus was married. I don’t know of any evidence for that really. Although Dan Brown seems to think there is!
p.s. Actually on second thoughts, there is one hint he might have married. He gets referred to as “rabbi” a number of times (this gets hidden a lot of time in the King James Bible, but it’s there in the Greek). According to tradition, rabbis, unlike Catholic priests were supposed to be married before they got ordained. I have no problem with the idea that Jesus was married, but it’s not something Mormons are “supposed to believe” – since it’s not taught anywhere as scripture or official proclamation. It makes sense to me, and I personally believe he was, but it certainly isn’t official. (BTW, part of why I like to believe he was is that the justifications for why he couldn’t have been are just so lame.) Old-Timer wrote:I have no problem with the idea that Jesus was married, but it’s not something Mormons are “supposed to believe” – since it’t not taught anywhere as scripture or official proclamation. It makes sense to me, and I personally believe he was, but it certainly isn’t official. (BTW, part of why I like to believe he was is that the justifications for why he couldn’t have been are just so lame.)
Well, I just don’t think we talk or think about it much. But, I think it is safe to say that it is official doctrine that you cannot be exalted without a celestial marriage. If Jesus is exalted he has to be married by LDS doctrine. However, like you have noted, it is far from official.
Jesus has had temple work done-he has been sealed to Mary Magdalene.
There are references in talks from early saints (which is their beliefs and opinions) that they were of the line of Jesus. It is of no bearing on our beliefs today, but I am always interested in the beliefs of others, especially “my people.”
I think the only reason some religions have demanded Jesus be single is because they also held the belief that sex was sinful.
Old-Timer wrote:I have no problem with the idea that Jesus was married, but it’t not something Mormons are “supposed to believe” – since it’s not taught anywhere as scripture or official proclamation. It makes sense to me, and I personally believe he was, but it certainly isn’t official. (BTW, part of why I like to believe he was is that the justifications for why he couldn’t have been are just so lame.)
I agree with you Ray, I don’t have a problem with the idea it is possible Christ was married…but I do have a problem with putting conditions on Him, as if to say, “He must have been married if He is to attain the Celestial Kingdom” or “He had to obey the Word of Wisdom just like I have to”.Comparing Him to my situation doesn’t make sense to me. He is my Savior and God, and not held to some standard or checklist we put on salvation as a church. I don’t like comparing my situation to His, as I put Him in a totally different league. I will try to emulate Him, but accept I will never be on His level of power, understanding and capacity to love others…and I don’t have to be.
In this line of thinking, I think there are various personal circumstances each of us face, and so there are many ways a Just God can provide for His Children, all in unique and personal ways.
Some people never find a spouse in this life, and its ok.
Some people never have children in this life, and its ok.
Some people never hear about the gospel in this life, and its ok.
Heber, I like those reasons why he might not have been married. Old-Timer wrote:Heber, I like those reasons why he might not have been married.
I thought you were going to say you like my new signature line!FWIW (since I haven’t chimed in on this post) I would be highly skeptical of anyone’s claims that Jesus did not really exist. I think it’s pretty well established that there was such an individual. Whether or not the miracles are true, he was resurrected, etc. are different issues, but he definitely existed. As for whether or not Jesus was married – I have no clue. Either way is fine with me.
Heber, I really, really, really like your new signature line. Can you introduce me to the genius who said it? 
Old-Timer wrote:Heber, I really, really, really like your new signature line. Can you introduce me to the genius who said it?
Sure, he’s a real humble guy.Brian Johnston wrote:From the StayLDS perspective, the right answers are the ones that work for people, answers that help rebuild faith.
This also goes along with what I thought when someone (last year?
When I was TBM, I’ve believed that God would judge based on what we’ve been taught – Muslims according to the Qur’an (Koran), Jews according to the Torah etc. I believed that God looks on the heart, & still believe that…but now, even more. Now, I’m thinking that there is power & truth in feeling – (as illogical as that sounds)! If we feel the spirit about something that inspires us to do good, then it’s good! (defining “good” is key, right?
Whether Jesus actually lived or was the most important parable character of all time, there is still the possibility of learning & spiritually growing from the messages & teachings of his life. Christ is taking on more & more new meanings for me!
Featherina wrote:Brian Johnston wrote:From the StayLDS perspective, the right answers are the ones that work for people, answers that help rebuild faith.
…Whether Jesus actually lived or was the most important parable character of all time, there is still the possibility of learning & spiritually growing from the messages & teachings of his life. Christ is taking on more & more new meanings for me!
I agree, we are all sharing our perspectives of what works for our faith, and Featherina expressed thoughts very well…the learning and spirituality can be tied to His messages and teachings.I’m interested if some people still find it helpful to believe He was real and why it does or why it doesn’t matter to you?
It seems to me it impacts teachings like the Atonement (crucial to God’s Plan), resurrection (crucial to our salvation), and the validity of prophets that testify of Him not just His teachings.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.