- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
My real question is: is it a folk doctrine among Mormons that Jesus was married? In case this topic has been done before, I am not asking if Jesus was married in some objective historical sense (although feel free to comment on that if you like). I am wondering whether those of you who are culturally LDS were taught informally by your parents that Jesus was married during his mortal ministry. I know the Church today avoids the question.
Some years ago, I asked my fanatical TBM friend who got me into the Church and he sent me all sorts of apostolic comments going back to the 19th century to the effect that Jesus was married and even had kids. He himself won’t answer the question, saying he just doesn’t know. However, I have met quite a few TBMs who believe he was married–one who taught Institute accidentally blurted it out in class and said “oops!” Another said McConkie believed it and chewed out a missionary in the TBM for daring to contradict him. That may be an apocryphal story. My home teacher won’t say whether he was taught that Jesus was married and gets very uncomfortable at the question as if he were holding a copper rod on a golf course during a thunderstorm.
This is a wink and a nod doctrine. Ask almost any TBM and they will say yes. Ask a leader on national TV and the answer will be ambiguous. So yes we believe it but not publicly. My perception is that the “doctrine” is prevalent among Utah members and ex-pat Utahans. It’s never discussed where I live. I can tell you that I never believed him to have been married, even when I was a believing member of the Church. I always thought of it as projecting… assuming something about Jesus based on something about us. I only point this out to say that there is certainly no consensus. Jesus was not portrayed in the NT as being married. Conversely, neither was Peter, except for a parenthetical mention of his mother-in-law. Paul was not married, at least not at the time he wrote I Corinthians. He did, at that time, espouse the idea of staying un-spoused, so we can probably assume that he remained unmarried.
I don’t know if he was or wasn’t and I don’t particulalry care. I did once believe he was undoubtedly married, and every TBM I ever discussed it with (even here in Upstate NY) as believed he was. I can give you the reasons I have heard as to why people think he was but I will admittedly simplify them. First, it is generally assumed among members that Jesus is in the Celestial Kingdom because he lives with God and that’s where God lives. We all know that in order to enter the CK we must have been sealed in the temple. Therefore in order for Jesus to be in the CK he must be married.
The second reason has to do with references to Jesus being a rabbi and/or teaching in the synagogue. It is my understanding that in order to teach in the synagogue one must have been male, 30 years old, and married. There are scriptural references to Jesus teaching in the synagogue, so it must be assumed he met the requirements.
I am not an expert in LDS theology nor am an I expert in Jewish history or tehology, so take the above for what it’s worth, they are simply things I have been taught.
Not trying to debate whether Jesus was married or not, because as you said, DJ, I also don’t particularly care. So, only from the standpoint of discussion of the rationale that people use: – Presumably, the Holy Ghost also dwells with God. But he has no body, so cannot be married according to LDS theology. In fact, it’s got to be a bummer to be the HG. Eternity is a long time to remain a virgin. Anyway, people that claim this line of logic (that Jesus had to be married to be with God) are suspending the same logic elsewhere (HG). Also the idea that only people who are married in this life can attain the CK flies in the face of established LDS beliefs regarding temple work for the dead.
– The Rabbi concept is an interesting one. Honestly, that’s the most rational argument I’ve heard for it. But it’s not perfect. Jesus as a Rabbi is a long-standing debate. Jesus was never called Rabbi in any of the synoptic gospels, only in John. There, he was called Rabbi four times. Interestingly, the first occasion adds the parenthetical explanation that Rabbi means Master. Given that, I think it is completely acceptable to assume that they were calling him Master, rather than referring to him by the professional title of Rabbi. Also, John the Baptists’ disciples referred to him as Rabbi in the Gospel of John. It would be a real stretch to think that JB was a literal Rabbi of a Synagogue. In addition, recall that naysayers often challenged Jesus about his credentials (“Is not this Joseph’s son?” “By what authority doest thou these things?”). In other words, non-believers didn’t treat him like someone of the Rabbinical School.
I tend to think he was, but only because he wasn’t labeled as a disciple of any particular sect that espoused not marrying, the fact that marriage wasn’t recorded about any of his followers except the reference to Peter’s mother-in-law when she was sick and also because I think the theological reasons other denominations use to claim he wasn’t married (and was celibate) are stupid and actually damaging. Thus, I want him to have been married if for no other reason than to invalidate those stupid justifications. There really isn’t any solid evidence one way or the other. Yes, it absolutely is commonly assumed among the LDS membership, especially given Talmage’s interpretation in “Jesus, the Christ” of Jesus’ visit to Mary Magdalene after his resurrection. (translating “Touch me not” as “Hold me not” and the fact that Jesus appeared to her before visiting HF) I would guess that a VERY large majority of the membership believes he was married.
Since Paul was mentioned, many Biblical scholars believe he was homosexual, and I think that is a very good possibility. If pressed into taking a stance one way or the other, I would say I believe he was.
Curtis wrote:I want him to have been married if for no other reason than to invalidate those stupid justifications.
Love that!Curtis wrote:Since Paul was mentioned, many Biblical scholars believe he was homosexual
I want him to have been homosexual if for no other reason than to invalidate those stupid teachings about homosexuality.Also possible that Paul was a widower who did not subsequently remarry. The reference in I Corinthians says, “To the unmarried and the widows I say that it is well for them to remain unmarried as I am.”
Of course Jesus is married, his bride is the church. You weren’t expecting that answer, but it’s a mainstream Christian view.
convert1992 wrote:My real question is: is it a folk doctrine among Mormons that Jesus was married?
This was a long time ago. I remember hearing that the wedding feast at Cana was Christ’s own wedding. And that if he was married, he could have been a polygamist, even though – and maybe I’m wrong about this – monogamy the norm at his time. It was definitely not discussed often.
Ann wrote:convert1992 wrote:My real question is: is it a folk doctrine among Mormons that Jesus was married?
This was a long time ago. I remember hearing that the wedding feast at Cana was Christ’s own wedding. And that if he was married, he could have been a polygamist, even though – and maybe I’m wrong about this – monogamy the norm at his time.
It was definitely not discussed often. That’s because this subject, like many others in Mormonism, is the subject of great supposition and speculation. While such things are fun to think about, and I really did like
Jesus the Christwhen I read it, truth is we’re much better off putting our efforts into keeping the two great commandments. This does of course lead to a Da Vinci problem. Did he have children? Are his descendents still amongst us? Ann wrote:This was a long time ago. I remember hearing that the wedding feast at Cana was Christ’s own wedding. And that if he was married, he could have been a polygamist, even though – and maybe I’m wrong about this – monogamy the norm at his time. It was definitely not discussed often.
One of the reasons that seems plausable that he might have been married is that being unmarried and 33 was not used against him by the naysayers. But this also cuts against the polygamist theory. If he had multiple wives – that also would have made good fodder for his critics.
One theory that I really liked was the possibility that Mary, Martha, and Lazerus were orphans. That would explain why Mary and Martha were not yet married and lived in the same house. Lazerus – the older brother – could have stepped in as breadwinner to keep the family together. Puts a new spin on Jesus’ love and concern for the family – doesn’t it.
If you are looking for the root of LDS belief in Jesus marriage you have to go to openly talked teachings from past prophets and apostles in which it is rooted and not talked about for PR mainstream worldwide church expansion reasons. Never the less, here they are.
Brigham young
Quote:The Scripture says that He, the Lord, came walking in the Temple, with “HIS TRAIN; I do not know who they were, unless his wives and children;” (Journal of Discourses, Vol. 13. page 309)
Jedediah M. Grant
Quote:Celsus was a heathen philosopher; and what does he say upon the subject of Christ and his Apostles, and their belief? He says, the ‘grand reason why the Gentiles and philosophers of his school persecuted Jesus Christ, was because He had so many wives; there were Elizabeth, and Mary, and a host of others that followed Him.’ After Jesus went from the stage of action, the Apostles followed the example of their master. . . The grand reason of the burst of public sentiment in anathemas upon Christ and his disciples, casing his crucifixion, was evidently based on polygamy,. . .a belief in the doctrine of plurality of wives caused the persecution of Jesus, and his followers. We might almost think they were ‘Mormons’ (Journal of Discourses, Vol 1. ppl 345-346)
Orson Hyde
Quote:“It will be borne in mind that once on a time, there was a marriage in Cana of Galilee; . . .no less a person than Jesus Christ was married on that occasion. If he was never married, his intimacy with Mary and Martha, and the other Mary also whom Jesus loved, must have been highly unbecoming and improper to say the least of it.”
“I will venture to say that if Jesus Christ were now to pass thought the most pious countries in Christendom with a train of women, such as used to follow him, . . .he would be mobbed, tarred, and feathered, and rode, not on as ass, but on a rail.”
“At this doctrine the long-faced hypocrite and the sanctimonious bigot will probably cry, blasphemy! . . . Object not, therefore, too strongly against the marriage of Christ.” (All the above statements: Journal of Discourses, Vol. 4, pages 259-260)
“When Mary of old came to the sepulcher. . .she saw two angels in white. and they said unto her, Woman, why weepest thou? She said unto them, Because they have take away my Lord, OR HUSBAND, and I know not where they have laid him.” (Journal of Discourses, Vol. 2, page 210)
the Millennial Star
Quote:“. . .we apprehend that even greater troubles than these may arise before mankind learn all the particulars of Christ’s incarnation-how and by whom he was begotten; the character of the relationships formed by the act; the number of wives and children he had. . .” (The Millennial Star, Vol 15, page 825)
Orson Pratt
Quote:“…it will be seen that the GREAT MESSIAH who was the founder of the Christian religion, WAS A POLYGAMIST, . . .the MESSIAH chose. . .by marrying honorable wives himself, show to all future generations that HE approbated the plurality of wives under the Christian dispensation, as well as under the dispensation in which His polygamist ancestors lived. . . .We have now clearly shown that God the Father had a plurality of wives. . .” (The Seer, page 172)
A few others but I don’t want to quote my own ancestors journals.
Re: Brigham Young: I only post because it took me a while to find the verse that he was referring to. I kept wracking my brain trying to come up with where in the NT it mentioned this because the only verses that came to mind with respect to Jesus and the temple was when he cast out the money changers. Anyway, the verse is: Isaiah 6:1 wrote:In the year that king Uzziah died I saw also the Lord sitting upon a throne, high and lifted up, and his train filled the temple.
Where “his train” refers to his robe rather than his attendants.
The other quotes appear to be exactly what OON described:
On Own Now wrote:I always thought of it as projecting… assuming something about Jesus based on something about us.
Dark Jedi’s explanation was the one I always heard, the one that is borne of necessity due to the dogma surrounding qualifications for entry into the CK.
nibbler wrote:Re: Brigham Young: I only post because it took me a while to find the verse that he was referring to. I kept wracking my brain trying to come up with where in the NT it mentioned this because the only verses that came to mind with respect to Jesus and the temple was when he cast out the money changers. Anyway, the verse is:
Isaiah 6:1 wrote:In the year that king Uzziah died I saw also the Lord sitting upon a throne, high and lifted up, and his train filled the temple.
Where “his train” refers to his robe rather than his attendants.
The other comments appear to be exactly what OON described:
On Own Now wrote:I always thought of it as projecting… assuming something about Jesus based on something about us.
Dark Jedi’s explanation was the one I always heard, the one that is borne of necessity due to the dogma surrounding qualifications for entry into the CK.
Yes it appears so. My posting wasn’t meant to express agreement or disagreement but rather where the source of this comes from. From the nearly beginning it looks like. Fades over time to appear more mainstream in a world wide church those things, while not being blasphemous to me(more like hilarious). Would be blasphemous to others we want to convert.
Personally I really enjoy open non dogmatic speculation over correlation or dogma by 100 fold.
In that way I really can relate to the thoughts that were expressed openly back then much more then today, as long as they we not dogmatic about it.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.