Was Jesus married?

[Anonymous]

In the explanation that Jesus had to married to enter the CK, there is always the possibility that the marriage would take place later perhaps during the millennium. That raises a slightly different set of questions, but no more than the idea that he was married during his earthly ministry. Personally, I think the Jewish traditions are a more compelling reason for me to believe he was married than theories about the CK. Again, while I don’t really think it matters, it is fun to think about the idea of children if there was a marriage (when you have absolutely nothing else to do). If there were children, were they 1/4 gods? Can their lineage be traced? Alas, I do have other things to do….

[Anonymous]

DarkJedi wrote:

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 Christ when I read it, truth is we’re much better off putting our efforts into keeping the two great commandments.

I totally agree! I thought it was more a poll re. what people have been taught over their years…. 😳

[Anonymous]

The best evidence that Jesus was married is that the NT does not say that he wasn’t.

The best evidence that Jesus was not married is that the NT does not say that he was.

[Anonymous]

On Own Now nailed it perfectly. The Bible is the best argument for both conclusions.

As for the polygamist issue, take a look at the time period for every one of those quotes. Philosophy of men, mingled with scripture. I understand completely why they said what they said, but I don’t have to give any of those quotes any degree of legitimacy. I believe they were wrong, so I move on and invest no mental or emotional capital in their idea. (Really, I think the idea that Jesus was polygamous is one of the stupidest ideas ever expressed by some Mormons, right up their with the idea that women will “birth” spirit children in the same way they birth mortal children and be pregnant throughout eternity. It might have made a tiny bit of sense back in the day, but, with modern technology, especially, it is utterly stupid now. /end of rant / please don’t let that become a threadjack of its own)

[Anonymous]

Yes, it is a folk doctrine among Mormons that Jesus was married, but no, it’s not really taught any more. When I was TBM, I believed that he was married, to Mary Magdelene. The way it was explained to me was that you have to be married to get to the top level of the celestial kingdom, so of course Jesus would be married. Also, there’s that stuff in the Book of Mormon about Jesus being baptized to fulfill all righteousness and to show everyone by example that they should be baptized. So, to me, it only made sense that Jesus would have participated in the sealing ordinance, to fulfill all righteousness and to show us an example. One of my missionary companions said that his father told him that he was a literal descendant of Jesus Christ. This missionary companion of mine believed it wholeheartedly. What do I think now about Jesus’ marital status? I have no idea.

[Anonymous]

So who are the descendants of Jesus? The Joseph Smith family? The Merovingians? The prophets of the church?

But… this is not a current teaching AFAIK.

[Anonymous]

D&C 113 is often used to show that JS was a descendant of Jesus.

[Anonymous]

telemoonka wrote:

One of my missionary companions said that his father told him that he was a literal descendant of Jesus Christ.

That was a close one! I was drinking orange juice while reading this post and I nearly blew OJ out my nose.

[Anonymous]

I am a child of God, so I suppose in a sense I am a direct descendant, too.

[Anonymous]

SamBee wrote:

So who are the descendants of Jesus? The Joseph Smith family? The Merovingians? The prophets of the church?

But… this is not a current teaching AFAIK.

I don’t think so but I heard it brought up by numerous seminary and institute teachers though, along with god being the son a another god and weather that made Jesus the savior if the earth or all the current universe as supposed to gods father and his sons sacrifice. Which was weird to think of as god as a sin so therefore possible the savior before the savior.

Which makes sense in the context of the belief that god used to be human and found his way home through obedience and became god. Once you look at the doctrine that as man is god god once was, and as god is an may become. It starts to get hairy, because if god user to be on his way to exhalation then that makes the obvious need according to our doctrine for a savior for god and his fellow men. Would that make god the savior before the savior?

Behold the paradox a whole universe wide of “as man is god once was”.

[Anonymous]

telemoonka wrote:

One of my missionary companions said that his father told him that he was a literal descendant of Jesus Christ. This missionary companion of mine believed it wholeheartedly.

I can’t resist asking. Did you keep in touch with him?

[Anonymous]

To the people who asked about my former missionary companion who believes he’s a literal descendant of Jesus Christ, yeah I still keep in touch with him. He’s a really great guy. I’m friends with him on Facebook. He’s married and has 3 kids and he’s a financial manager. He’s not unusual or anything. He told me his Dad told him about his lineage when he was in the celestial room in the temple when he got his endowments for the first time. So this is something he really really really believes, but he doesn’t like to talk about it because it’s so sacred.

[Anonymous]

I can understand why someone wouldn’t want to talk about it, but it’s essentially a family tradition. (And moreover, it’s obviously not something he came up with)

[Anonymous]

SamBee wrote:

This does of course lead to a Da Vinci problem. Did he have children? Are his descendents still amongst us?

Well, who’s to say whether it’s accurate or not, but last week my father sent me an email as he was doing some genealogy at the family history library in SLC. As it turns out, he had followed one of our lines backward, and eventually hit Jesus Christ in the line. From there, obviously, we know the genealogy back to Adam.

We have seen lines go back to Adam before (in our family history), but not through Christ.

And the wife listed in the family tree? Mary Magdalene.

Now at first I was thinking to myself, how can this be? Do we know that he was married? Do we know to whom? Has someone made an assumption in the system and connected these two people (Christ and Mary) together? Or do they know something everyone else doesn’t? Was this from modern revelation or some other means (such as historical evidence, papyri, etc.)?

Forget for a moment whether or not this line of mine is even accurate. Let’s deal simply with “was Christ married?” I believe his absolutely was.

For what reason was Christ baptized? It wasn’t for the remission of sins. So why? What do we teach to our 8 year old kids when they get baptized? He was baptized to fulfill God’s commandments as a living ordinance, required for entry back into God’s presence, and because Jesus set the example. Even Christ is not above the required ordinances, and set the example for us, despite not needing the remission of His sins.

Quote:

Matthew 3:13-15

13 ¶Then cometh Jesus from Galilee to Jordan unto John, to be baptized of him.

14 But John forbad him, saying, I have need to be baptized of thee, and comest thou to me?

15 And Jesus answering said unto him, Suffer it to be so now: for thus it becometh us to fulfil all righteousness. Then he suffered him.

If marriage is also a required ordinance to enter the celestial kingdom, by the same logic Christ used for being baptized of John, would Christ not also have fulfilled the requirement of marriage, thus completing all the required ordinances and setting the example for us as to a perfect life without blemish, obeying all of God’s commandments? It makes sense. In fact, it would be illogical and difficult to argue that He didn’t marry. “Married to the church,” yes I’ve heard that, but so is a Bishop, a Stake President, etc. It’s a metaphor.

Quote:

The Articles of Faith, 4

4 We believe that the first principles and ordinances of the Gospel are: first, Faith in the Lord Jesus Christ; second, Repentance; third, Baptism by immersion for the remission of sins; fourth, Laying on of hands for the gift of the Holy Ghost.

It makes perfect sense to me, and I accept that Christ was not probably married, but absolutely would have been.

Now as to whether or not someone made some assumptions in the Church’s computer genealogy lines or not I couldn’t say. However, if you have ever used FamilySearch.org you know that it functions similar to how Wiki’s work online; people can submit changes that can be undone by people, and do so without any assigned authority.

Going back to familysearch.org today, I notice that someone has removed the spousal relationship of “Jesus Christ” to Mary Magdalene from that spot in my genealogy line, with the editorial comment “This is a speculative, controversial relationship without adequate documentation. This is an inappropriate use of the family tree.” Mary Magdalene is still there, however, but now lacking a proper spouse for her husband. “Add Husband.”

Before the relationship was deleted, it showed Mary and Jesus having three sons.

Quote:

So who are the descendants of Jesus? The Joseph Smith family? The Merovingians? The prophets of the church?

The descendants of Jesus would be incredibly numerous as to include a great many lines and people. People begatting people begatting people adds up to quite a lot of people over time, 😆 The answer to the question above could be simply, all of them. When we go back far enough, we’re all related anyway. I have to go back 61 generations to see Christ in my line. That’s a lot of people. Chances are, with that many generations, all of you reading this could also find Him in one of your lines as well.

The only other part of this I’m trying to learn and accept is whether Mary Magdalene was Christ’s wife (or one of them!). There is reason enough to believe it, considering:

[Anonymous]

When I joined the Church in Oregon in 1977, I was taught that Jesus was married–not as part of the missionary lessons but in conversations with other members.

It’s interesting to see that an increasing number of non-Mormon scholars are concluding that Jesus was married.

[Author]

Posts