In July of 2004 Mark Hacking called the police to report his wife, Lori, was missing. Almost a year later Mark was convicted of first-degree murder. He had shot his sleeping, pregnant wife in the head with a .22 rifle and sent her body off to decay in a Salt Lake County landfill.
Mark and Lori were eternally married in the autumn of 1999 in the Bountiful (UT) Temple of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. They planned to someday be together in the Celestial kingdom. Lori’s murder changed that plan. As a murderer, Mark has committed a sin
“for which there is ‘no forgiveness’ (D&C 42:79), meaning that a murderer can never gain salvation…he is outside the pale of redeeming grace…
“Murderers are forgiven eventually but…they are not forgiven in the sense that celestial salvation is made available to them…After they have paid the full penalty for their crime, they shall go on to a telestial inheritance.” (Apostle Bruce R. McConkie, Mormon Doctrine, “Murderers,” 520)
According to LDS doctrine, exaltation in the Celestial kingdom is only available to couples, and only to couples that have been married for time and all eternity in a Mormon temple:
“If one is going to be in God’s kingdom of exaltation, where God dwells in all his glory, one will be there as a husband or wife and not otherwise.” (Spencer W. Kimball, The Miracle of Forgiveness, 245)
“Since marriage is ordained of God, and the man is not without the woman, neither the woman without the man in the Lord, there can be no exaltation to the fulness of the blessings of the celestial kingdom outside of the marriage relation. A man cannot be exalted singly and alone; neither can a woman. Each must have a companion to share the honors and blessings of this great exaltation.” (Joseph Fielding Smith, Doctrines of Salvation, 2:65)
What I’m wondering is, according to the LDS gospel system, what happens to Lori Hacking? Joseph Fielding Smith said,
“No one can be deprived of exaltation who remains faithful. In other words, an undeserving husband cannot prevent a faithful wife from an exaltation and vice versa.” (Doctrines of Salvation, 2:65)
Lori’s parents have removed the “Hacking” name from Lori’s gravestone, telling the press that “Mark obviously didn’t want her (Lori) anymore.” I’m guessing that if Lori could speak, we’d find the feeling is mutual. It’s unlikely that Lori would want to spend eternity sealed to her murderer.
So what does eternity hold for Lori? Assuming she was “a faithful wife,” how does the Mormon system grant her its highest promised blessing?
Please provide source documentation with your answers.
If my memory serves me right, this kind of came-up one time months ago and one of our Mormon friends said something akin to God takes care of the women in a situation like this. I believe the Mormon poster went on to say that the Mormon god would seal her to someone else (out there, where ever, Kolob(?)). It’s another one of those issues that I believe Mormons categorize under the Mormon motto “there’s so much we don’t know” (which, BTW, would be a good motto for Mormonism in general).
I don’t know either, but I would guess that the Mormon church could do one of their rituals for the dead and get a woman in this situation sealed to someone else. Why not Joseph Smith, for example. I read an article recently that talked about the fact that even polygamous males who were booted out of the Utah based LDS church were getting a do-over after death in one of the secret ceremonies and if memory serves me right, their multiple wives were being sealed to them. So really, these guys weren’t penalized for their practice of multiple wifery. In fact polygamy seems to be a practice very much in fashion in the Celestial Kingdom despite the fact that the Mormon god will not allow its practice here on earth, which really I kind of doubt given the circumstances under which the Mormons stopped its practice.
Let’s face it, if a Mormon woman is married to a slacker, she’s not going to get to be a goddess anyway since the old man holds the hope for the whole family. I would think that if Adolf Hitler has had the work done for him and is on the pathway to godhood (Andy Watson has the documentation on this) and if excommunicated polygamus men are being fast tracked, people with other impediments to godhood could be accommodated some way.
Do you have any resources that describe how the LDS responds to the response of Jesus to the challenge of the Sadducees in Matt 22, Mark 12, and Luke 20?
We know to some degree. In the resurrection the women will be sealed to another man, one who is worthy to take her into the Celestial glory. We also know that the man must except her as his wife. While the particulars are not explained, as I do not think they need to be, I like the following idea the best.
When Christ comes back and issues in the Mellenial reign all the righteous will be ressurected. At this time Lori will also be resurrected and live in Zion. She will have the 1000 years of the melenium to find a man who will love her and marry her. This will happen in the same manner as it does with men and women now. She will socialize, make friends, be courted and eventually marry.
I believe it must be done in this time as once the milenium is over the works of God will over and final judgement will take place, at which time all must be finished.
Sorry I can’t give actual references. This concept is taken from several different places and the descussion of several different doctrines.
As to the Sadducees: Read Doctrine and Covenants 132: 7-17. This answers it rather nicely.
Of course one must also understand that the Sadducees were speaking of the Law of the Near Kinsman. This law is given in Deuteronomy 25: 5-10.
When one analyses these verses we see that the Brother marries the wife, but the first born is sealed to the husband that died. This indicates that the wife is not sealed tot he brother, but is married only under the laws of men. Thus the marriage is not eternal, and those who marry by this law will neither marry nor give in marriage in the resurrection.
This is how it was always explained to me at least.
I would have to say that Shem’s response is probably the most honest and accurate answer anyone would ever get from a Mormon. This is how I always understood it. Naturally, we part when it comes to NT teaching. The only marriage that will be in heaven will be between Christ and His Church.
Peace and Grace!
Two W’s come to mind regarding this matter:
Worthy & Willing.
Just because keys are provided it does not mean that exaltation is guaranteed.
Part of being worthy according to the Lord in the N.T. is to judge not lest ye be judged in a like manner.
Jesus didn’t marry.
Does that exclude him from the Celestial Kingdom?
Martin,
I have seen literature that both supports your opinion and destroys your opinion on whether Jesus was married or not. This is work by people who study the Bible and its traditions and times who are both believers and non-believers in the Bible. The Bible is quiet on whether Jesus was married or not so it supports neither position.
As far as I know, the LDS church has no official stance, however many are very adamant that Jesus was married as per Jewish tradition when He was late teens early twenties. Even our general authorities have their opinions on the matter and many of the past ones did say that Jesus was married. These people point to a verse towards the end of the Gospel of John stating that Jesus did many more things that cannot be contained no matter how many books are written about Him.
But if He wasn’t would it exclude Him from teh CK – Of course not. If you go through all the literature you will find that those who did not have the opportunity to marry on this earth will not have any blessings denied them – read the quote above bby Joseph Fielding Smith again. Jesus led a very busy life and may have not had the chance/opportunity to get married. Or because of the importance of His mission He was unable. But maybe He did get married – Who knows?
I believe that Shematwater has done a pretty good explanation, but all I can say is that we really know very little about what happens in circumstances like these as it is not pertinant to our own salvation. Those who are in that situation must keep the faith and remember that God is fair, just and loving.
It’s been a while since I posted here, but this is an interesting question.
Just like the belief in baptism for the dead can allow a person who has not been baptised in this life to accept baptism in the next, Jesus will be allowed to accept or reject marriage to anyone who feels inclined to seal themselves to him- as long as the sealing is done by the proper authority. Isn’t that how the Catholic concept of nuns got started? If we buy that concept then Jesus was a polgamist like JS, just not in this life.
Be careful this can be a very slippery slope. If we (Mormons) have the sealing power of Elijah restored like we claim, we can divorce, marry and baptise anyone we like in our temple, be they dead or alive. We accept vicarious marriage, just like we accept vicarious baptism. As long as we have a temple, and the judgement and ressurection has not happened yet we can “fix” any marriage problem in any century.
Christ taught this same concept.
Matt 22:30
For in the resurrection they neither marry, nor are given in marriage, but are as the angels of God in heaven.
I would interpret this to mean that all matters of marital status must be settled prior to resurrection day, after that day eternal marriage is not an option.
Please note that is moment in time is not anywhere close to the moment of your death- you can work out the details in the spirit world while you wait for judgement day. Eternal marriage is not for this life only, and we should not expect ALL issues related to eternal marriage to be resolved in this life only.
Does this answer the question?
GRCluff wrote “As long as we have a temple, and the judgement and ressurection has not happened yet we can “fix” any marriage problem in any century.
Christ taught this same concept.”
Welcome back GR.
Where, in the NT does Christ teach us about building temples so that we can vicariously “fix” marriage “problems”?
I’m asking a trick question, of course. The NT does not command us to build temples, because it teaches that Christ is the true Temple (Rev 21:22, explicitly, or Col 3:3 implicitly, if you can work out the riddle – think about where you would find a secure deposit for your treasure if you lived in the ancient near east), and/or that Christ completes in himself all the purposes and intents of the Temple (e.g. Rom 10:4).
Furthermore, the NT teaches that being married is not a pre-qualification for getting full and complete access to God and His heaven (e.g. Heb 10:19).
So, you’re saying that we need to build temples when the NT says we don’t, and we need to get married to enter into God’s “Most Holy place”, when the NT says we don’t.
If these ideas don’t come from the NT, where do they come from?
On addressing whether or not Jesus got married, Ralph wrote “..we really know very little about what happens in circumstances like these as it is not pertinant to our own salvation”
Actually, it is important.
It is important to Joseph Fielding Smith, who taught “…there can be no exaltation to the fulness of the blessings of the celestial kingdom outside of the marriage relation”. I’d say that this was quite unequivocal (and profoundly wrong). If Jesus was not in a marriage relation, then, according to this, he had no chance.
It is important to me. Please bear with me for some explanation here. I’m of the conviction that the Son of Man, whilst being fully God is also fully human. This means that he is a representative of the human race, of which I am a member (I know some folks on this forum might think otherwise). This means that His journey is the journey that I should take. The Gospel is that this human being (Jesus) actually succeeded in obtaining the goal of this journey. Its Good News because a human being (Jesus) has done this, which means that it is possible for other human beings (me) to follow, though we follow through the way that He has opened.
Now here’s the important bit – when Jesus did this, he was NOT a “special case”. If he had been given special rights and powers, then we’re stuck because we don’t share in these special rights and powers (see Phil 2:5-11).
OK, back to the marriage thing. If being married was essential for exaltation, as JFS taught, and Jesus was not married, then the only way he could have got into CK was if he had been given a special privilege. Given that I cannot expect to have these same privileges extended to me (I’m a sinner, remember), if I don’t get married, then the Son of Man has nothing to offer me.
On the topic of whether Jesus was married, I think not, because;
1 Nowhere in the NT do we read of any reference to Jesus having a wife
2 The only sources I can think of that imply Jesus being married are apocryphal, which means they can’t be fully trusted
3 Nowhere in the NT (and even the apocryphal sources, I think) do we read of Jesus having earthly children
Furthermore, if Jesus was married, then there are several opportunities in the NT where a wife or children could have been mentioned in context. For example Matt 12:46-50 (also Mark 3:31-35, Luke 8:19-21).
For me, though, the “clincher” is John 19:25-27, in which Jesus, in dying, secures his mother’s welfare by putting her in John’s care. In these circumstances, one would expect that he would have done the same sort of thing for a wife, or at least the wife should have got a mention somewhere.
Of course, there is the possibility that Jesus had got estranged from a wife, or even divorced, but this poses more problems than it solves in terms of celestial, or eternal marriage.
However you read it, Jesus’ marital status was simply not important enough for the NT authors to write an explicit statement. If their priorities lay elsewhere, why elevate the issue to the level of importance of redemption and salvation? It seems that there’s something wrong with the LDS agenda in putting undue importance on something that’s not a big deal to the NT. That’s not to say that marriage is not important. But, according to the Bible, it is not a pre-qualification to redemption and salvation.
Concerning Temples: Revelation 21: 22 is speaking of the city of zion that will exist during the milenial reign of Christ. When Christ returns to reign personally (no longer through earthly ministers and prophets) there will be no need of a Temple because he will literally be with us. Right now his spirit is with us, but he is not reigning personally, as his second coming has not happened.
I don’t really get the Colossians reference. I see this as a reference to the atonement, not to Temples.
Romans also does not mention the Temple. It says the Law, or the Law of Moses. However, this law was not the original law, but was given because the faith of ancient Isreal was not sufficient for the higher law that was given to their fathers (Heb. 4: 2)
As to Hebrews 10: 19. In the times of Ancient Isreal only the High Priest or the Prophet was allowed to enter the Holy of Holies in the Tabernacle, or Temple. This was part of the Law of Moses. Through the atonement of Christ this was done away, and we are all now, if made worthy through that atonement, allowed to enter this holiest of rooms within the Temple. So, as far as I see, this is a direct reference to Temple use and ceremony.
As to Jesus being married, I believe he was. I give two references that seem to support this very well.
First, the wedding in Cana as described in John chapter two. From Jewish tradition this sounds like Christ’s wedding. His mother is the one ordering the servants, or the one in charge of the feast. This would only happen if it was one of her sons that was getting married. Also, she asked Christ for help. If it was one of her other sons she would have asked them first.
The second reference is John 20: 17. Here Christ appears to Mary and when she recognizes him she reaches for him, indicated by him telling her not to touch him. He also says that he has not yet assended to his Father. So, after his death, but before he returned to heaven to report to the Father, he stopped off to comfort Mary Magdalene. Also (even though you don’t except it) Joseph Smith translated this as “Hold me not” instead of touch, indicating that she wanted to embrace him. All this indicates a much warmer relationship with her than with any other person (even the twelve).
As to the fact that it is never actually said in the scriptures, this makes perfect sense when you consider that after his death and resurrection the Jews would have wanted to destroy his family. He was the heir to the throne of David, and those who currently had power would have wanted to detroy that line. So his wife, and any children he might have had, would have been hidden and kept secret.
As to his having children: some say that Isaiah 53 prophecies that he would have children. Verse 8 talks of his generation, and verse ten says that at his death he will see his seed. However you chose to believe, the Bible does give enough to support a belief either way.
MARTIN
I think you misunderstand what Ralph said. God has promised that he will take care of these things. He has not told us how it is to be done, only that it will be done.
When Ralph says that it is not pertinant to our own salvation he means that we do not need to understand how it will be done, only that it will. That is all we need for us to gain a complete salvation.
Since these things will be worked out in the Milenium, and we are not in the milenium at this time, it is not necessary that we understand this. We need only concern ourselves with what we can do right now for our salvation, and for the salvation of the world (past and present). When we are able to do other things God will reveal the knowledge of how to do them.
As to special treatment, I have to ask if you thought about those who die to young to be married. I know that you do not believe in Eternal marriage, but I am just pointing out that God makes provisions for all his children, including Christ. All those who died to young to be married will have a chance to marry later. If they receive a special treatment do to their circumstances why could not Christ.
I also know that there are some (not many) who never marry in this life and yet they will get the chance to marry in the next. Why is this? Because the person they are supposed to marry, the one they chose as their husband or wife in the pre-existance, was not a part of their mortal life.
People can have special treatment, or conditions set for their life, depending on the lessons they need to learn in this life, or the mission they are sent to fulfill.
I understand that you do not agree, I am simple pointing out that there is no contradiction in this respent in the LDS doctrine.
Shematwater,
John 2:1 says Jesus was invited to the wedding with his disciples. I don’t know about you but I was not invited to my wedding. Jesus’s Mother also says “they have no wine” (John 2:3)not “we have no wine” as you would expect if it was Jesus’s wedding. The response “Woman, what does this have to do with me?” is not what would be expected if Jesus was in fact the groom and responsible for providing the wedding feast with wine. In John 2:9 the master of the feast calls the bridegroom, not Jesus when he tastes the wine. And finally John 2:12 says that “After this he went down to Capernaum, with his mother and his brothers and his disciples…” with no mention made of a new wife.
Marry addresses Jesus as ““Rabboni!” (which means Teacher)” (John 20:16) this not exactly an intimate form of address that one would expect a wife to use and not show any closer of a relationship than Jesus had with any of his followers.
Not that I propose this but I always thought that people who are looking to Mary Magdalene as the bride of Christ should be looking at Martha, Lazarus’s sister, instead. There isn’t much to support this theory (as I said, I do not support it) except that she was always nagging him (Luke 10:40 and John 11:20).
Ralph and GRCluff,
In your responses to Martin, you are talking about Jesus as if He is not God, and as if all your rules apply to Him. This just proves that the Jesus you worship is NOT the Jesus of the Bible, who is the Son of God, who created all things, and who is LORD of everything. This only goes to show that JS and subsequent leaders have not a clue as to what they teach regarding celestial marriage. No matter what you say, there is no support for marriage in heaven. Again, you try to manipulate the Bible to eisegete and draw your faulty conclusions. At some point, we Christians need to take a strong stand against the heresies you try to spread. You worry about the breakdown of Jesus’ family while breaking down His God-ship. As I have said before, you guys might behave in ways that give the appearance of righteousness, but your thoughts and views regarding Jesus need to be repented of. As for the official stance of the LDS Church regarding Jesus being married, this is another one of those things that fall under the “not official church doctrine” category; however, many local leaders and priesthood holders hold to the belief that he was married because Jesus is our Exemplar, and if He is requiring celestial marriage–as baptism–then He was also married. All this does is prove that Mormonism is built on the salvation equation of Jesus plus…which is so NOT Christian.
Peace and Grace to Seekers of Truth!
Ralph,
You mentioned Jewish tradition concerning marriage and Jesus, external Jewish history (Philo and Josephus) and the Bible tell us that remaining unmarried (Matt 19:11, 12) can in fact be a regarded as a righteous life decision in both a biblical Christian and first century Jewish perspective. Jesus does not give any waring that we will fail to achieve anything if we do not get married but plainly condemns divorce.
GUNDECK
John 2: 1 says that Jesus’ mother was already there, and then verse 2 says that Christ and his disciples were called. As by Jewish custom, the parents of the bride and groom prepared the feast. The groom was summoned, and came with a procession of his friends and relatives to the marriage, where he would join his bride. Thus this is still in line with Jewish tradition.
In verse 3 it is “they have no wine because, by tradition, the wedding and feast were held at the house of the brides parents. Also, the ruler of the feast in verse 9 would have been the brides Father. Still, Mary would not have been there before Christ, nor would she have gone to him unless it was his wedding.
When Christ says “Woman, what have I to do with thee? mine hour is not yet come,” he is telling her that his ministry had not yet started. He had not yet embarked on the great calling that he had been given, not that it wasn’t his position to do this. This is the first recorded miracle, and it seems that Christ is telling her that he had not planned on this, as it was not part of his ministry.
As to Mary’s words, it is her actions that I am more interested in. Remember that John was not present for this exchange. He did not hear the exact words used. He is telling the story as he heard it, and thus it is the actions that should be emphasized, not the words.
As to Martha, I have heard it theorized by early church leaders that Christ was married to Martha, as well as her sister Mary, and to Mary Magdalene. I don’t say if they were right, but I will not say they were wrong.
As to Matthew 19, this is simply agreeing with what we have already said. Not all people are able to marry in this life. However, they can live righteously and be worthy of the Celestial Kingdom, and they will receive this ordinance in the next life.
As to marriage not being required by the Bible, I would refer you to 1 Corinthinas 11: 11-12 Nevertheless neither is the man without the woman, neither the woman without the man, in the Lord. For as the woman is of the man, even so is the man also by the woman; but all things of God.
It seems rather clear here that a man cannot be (or cannot be exaulted) without the woman, and vice versa. We need each other. Now the only way given by God for us to be one flesh, and thus gain salvation, is through Marriage, as instituted by God himself when he married Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden before the Fall.
Anther reference is 1 Peter 3: 7 Likewise, ye husbands, well with them according to knowledge, giving honour unto the wife, as unto the weaker vessel, and as being “HEIRS TOGETHER” of the grace of life; that your prayers be not hindered.
I can show through a logic study of the Bible that marriage and families are eternal, but I think this is good for now.
Shematwater,
John 2:2 says “Jesus also was invited to the wedding with his disciples…” not “Jesus the Groom and his wedding party were called at the appointed time.” So no it doesn’t fit at all.
You depiction of the wedding feast is missing a few things. The Groom did go to the brides home with the wedding party to meet the bride but they did not enter the brides house, she and he party met the groom and they returned to the grooms home for the ceremony. The location of the 7 day wedding party would have been decided and at the betrothal and placed in the Ketubah, the legal document binding the engagement. So no this does not fit with Jewish wedding customs and it is only your assumption that John was not in attendance at the wedding feast, I am not sure it is a good plan to decide theological doctrines on assumptions and speculations.
1 Cor 11:11, 12 in its context is talking about head coverings during worship. 1 Pet 3:7 has nothing to do with a requirement to get married but what you are to do once you are married.
Once again, the Mormons want to get their heretical views into the biblical text. I can only guess that they do not know what they are really saying. You see, when Shem states that man and woman cannot be exalted without the other (and they really don’t even know what exalted means), they are basically going back to their NON biblical equation of salvation: Jesus plus SOMETHING ELSE–and the sad thing is the something else is fallen man. Mormon males believe they will call their wives through the veil, and the wife is dependent on the husband to remember her new name. That is absolutely ridiculous, nonbiblical, and an affront to the Work and Person of Jesus Christ. Sorry, Shem, but your efforts to prove your points are merely exercises in biblical eisegesis. I don’t know why you and the other Mormons cannot accept the fact that we are saved SOLELY on the merits of Jesus Christ–that’s it. You cannot save anyone, shem, not even yourself. Your salvation is not dependent on your wife–but solely on the Work of Jesus Christ on the cross-not Gethsemane–but the cross of Calvary.
Peace and Grace!
Actually this is a great discussion because it shows how truly out to lunch the whole Mormon program is. Our Mormon posters are exposing Mormonism for what it is. So I rejoice that the lurkers can get a first hand view of the culture of thinking that permeates this cult. That’s been the greatest benefit to me in the time that I’ve been involved on this blog.
Mormons can make anything fit. Forgive me, but it’s like dealing with delusional people. It’s been entertaining watching the Mormons who post here hit the ball back and forth over the net with this discussion. It really blows my hair back. I’m shaking my head asking myself, “Are these people for real?”
Of course they have to make Jesus be married. If he wasn’t, then the whole house of cards comes tumbling down. Mormons don’t even have to look for scriptural support for their point of view. They just have to believe it’s true and in their world it is. Nobody cares in Mormonland about evidence. Evidence just kind of ruins all the fun. So, yes, the Mormon jesus can be married. Why not? He’s not the Jesus of the Bible anyway. Our Mormon friends can even make him a polygamus if they want to. I heard one FLDS dude say that the Mormon jesus’ wives were Martha and Mary. Why not. Every group wants to claim “a jesus”, even those who practice homosexuality.
So Mormon friends, have a blast. This is one more indication as to why Mormonism isn’t Christianity but a not so clever invention of a man with a magic rock who found success as a religious entrepreneur.
Oh my, the falcon got so carried away with his rant that he didn’t notice that he spelled “polygamist” wrong. I guess that would automatically disqualify me from ever getting to be one.
I want to add to all the great thoughts on why Jesus was not Married.
Jesus Knew He was here to Die, If Jesus Got married then He was not doing His wife any favors by not telling her He was going to Die.
Then Jesus is a type of Passover found in the OT.
In the OT people would take a sheep without blemish, be allowed to live with a family as a “pet” for a number of days, then be examined by the priests before it was slain.
Jesus lived among us as a lamb with out blemish, if he were married He would have blemish, since He would have as any man does, sexual thoughts towards his wife, and probably struggle with sexual sin, since he can have sex and knows He’s about to die.
Then as the Lamb in the OT, the priests examined him with His bogus trial and running him around in the night to be seen by the religious elite.
Then the Bible tells us,
Than as on Brother pointed out, When Jesus Died on the Cross, He made no mention of His wife, this seems to fit the Verse and that would not look good for Jesus.
Lastly, After He rose from the Dead it seems he spoke with His Mother First than His Disciples.
This shows Him Going against His word since the Bible tells us, A man shall Leave mother and Father and cleave to your wife. Please Explain why Jesus did not seek out His wife over His mother at His resurrection. Rick b
Come on Rick. Get a grip. The mormon jesus was too married. He was married because Mormons want him to be married. You’re always doing the Bible quote thing. What’s that about?
I love this topic because like so many others it gets me to do a little research and look into the deep dark past of Mormon history where no faint of heart Mormon would ever dare go. Under the topic of “Law of Adoption” we find some really neat stuff. For example: In the early days of the Mormon Church, the Law of adoption was practiced to seal living men to other men. YIKES! Say it isn’t so Joe! Through this ordinance, a man could have any number of men sealed to himself as his sons for eternity. According to Gordon Irving, “No consensus exists with regard to the date when the first adoptions were performed…it is certainly possible, perhaps probable, that Joseph Smith did initiate certain trusted leaders into the adoptionary order as early as 1842.” (Brigham Young University studies, Spring 1974, pl 295) It even seems the Law of Adopton was believed to be necessary for salvation, as recorded in Wilford Woodruff’s journal:
“Many other interesting & important items were presented by President Young much to our edifcation. Meeting was dismissed & met again at 2 o’clock & was addressed in a vary edifying manner by O Pratt & treated upon the same principles spoken of by Br. Young. Among his remarks He said that as all the ordinaces of the gospel Administered by the world since the Apostasy of the Church was illegal, in like manner was the marriage Ceremony illegal and all the world who had been begotten through the illegal marriage were Bastards not sons & hence they had to enter into the law of adoption & be adopted into the Priesthood inorder to become sons & legal heirs of salvation.” (Wilford Woodruff’s Journal, Vol. 3, August 15, 1847. p. 260)
I’ll provide more if there’s an interest. But I just love this stuff. It’s so Mormon!
Falcon, Another problem with Jesus being married is this, The Bible, O-no Here I go Again, Bible Thumper.
THE BIBLE tells us the Church is the Bride of Christ, and He (Jesus) is returning for His Bride, (US THE CHURCH).
So I guess if the Mormon Jesus Got Married and did not tell his bride His mission was to Die, thats really unfair to His Wife, Then only speak about His mother as He dies, no mention of His wife, Again not a loving Husband.
Then after He rises from the dead, He speaks to His Mom First and Never mentions His Wife, Dang what a lousy husband. Rick b
Rick,
What you say makes perfect sense from a Christian perspective. That’s the problem. We’re dealing with Mormonism here. You know the drill about Mormonism. Remember our discussions about “grace” and how the Mormons just go nuts about the idea of salvation being a free gift that we neither deserve or can earn? And we argue with them and quote scripture and get all exercised and they just keep fighting the very idea? Well that’s because they’re not Christians. They’re Mormons. Mormonism has a whole different program. We’ve got these guys just knocking themselves out trying to become gods, so in their religious world view, salvation by grace makes no sense….and really it shouldn’t. They’re in a different program.
So when they go around like chickens scratching the dirt trying to find any kind of reference to support a married Jesus, it’s to bolster their whole Celestial Kingdom destination program. Now you and I, being Biblical Christians, know they’re totally bonkers, but this is about their religion. We’re dealing with gods and goddesses and men becoming gods, and sealings of families forever out there around Kolob somewhere (which I can’t find on an astronomical chart) and temple rituals with real live spooks…..get my drift? We’re not dealing with Christianity here. We’re dealing with some sort of mythology with a little Christianity and a pinch of Free Masonry and a whole lot of blue sky speculation that changes with the wind.
So I like what you write, but it’s not relevent to a religion like Mormonism that makes it up as it goes along.
BTW, I’m running out of the hot powder. I eat it straight-up when I’m out here blogging if I feel that I’m going soft. We need to get together up at one of your recommended eateries.
Martin, JackG, and others,
If you read carefully my first statement I said nothing at all about me believing that Jesus was married. I intentionally left my statement neutral because I do not know if He was or wasn’t married and really I do not care. It has nothing to do with my salvation. If He was then He could have been widowed early in life which is why He only provided for His mother while on the cross. Or He could have had a son – who then takes the responsibility of looking after the family. But then again, because of the purpose of His life on this earth, it may not have been a possibility for Him to get married while on this earth then.
Gundeck,
I am aware of that tradition of being unmarried, however, that was, from my understanding, a rare occurance. And because of that, there are many (not all but many) who are Biblical scholars that do believe that Jesus was married – although these are more from the non-believers groups than from the believers.
Oh Ralph, come on, will you please stop? “Biblical scholars” what’s that Ralph? Biblical scholars could be anyone with a Bible that you’d like to quote. There are “Biblical scholars” who fall all over the map of doctrinal belief, some who even deny the Bible. So don’t give me this Biblical scholars jazz. That’s right up there with your “matter of interpretation” line. You’ve got to step it up Ralph. You’re not dealing with the head bobbers down at the Ward when you come here.
“He could have been widowed” or “he could have had a son”…….and and and and maybe maybe maybe maybe….that’s typical Mormon out in left field speculation and is another example of Mormon logic. That’s why you buy all that Mormon fairytale nonsense.
I like you Ralph, but you’re beginning to try my patience.
Mormonism has the most limber of believers.. All this stretching is quite a sight. Like watching a contortionist crawl into a tiny box.
Shem wrote to me “I think you misunderstand what Ralph said”
Maybe I have, but I don’t think that I have misunderstood Joseph Fielding Smith.
P.S I understand that Ralph’s closing statement “remember that God is fair, just and loving” is along the lines of “God will give us what we need”, or “God is a righteous judge”, which isn’t a problem to me.
Anyhow, are you more interested in discussing Ralph’s interpretations or Joseph Fielding Smith’s “revelations”?
Ralph, Many Catholics teach Priests cannot get married, Catholics teach Peter was the first pope, the pope’s cannot marry.
We have a problem because the Bible tells us that Jesus healed Peters mother in law. You cannot have a mother in law if you never got married. The point of this story is this, If the Bible mentions Peters mother in law and thats all, I would think the Bible even in brief passing would mention Jesus was married or had a child.
Now to some degree I know you claim it is not an issue either way, if Jesus was married or He was not.
But it is a big deal if He was, the reason why it is, is as I laid out already. That would be, He is a lousy Husband, and I know you say, well maybe His wife Died. If He goes to the funeral of His friend Lazuras, and weeps, How much more would He mention He had a wife and She Died?
And if He Got divorced, then He is sending a terrible message to His followers by Claiming God hates Divorce, then either leaves His wife, or consents to her leaving Him. So yes Ralph, Lets not be bothered by Truth, Facts and Logic.
I really hate it when Facts, truth and Logic get in the way of what we want to believe. As the Bible teaches, O-boy here we (I) go again, Letting Truth, facts and Logic get in the way. But the Scripture teaches A time will come when they want teachers to tickle their itching ears and people will not endure sound Doctrine. Rick b
RickB,
You said “Lastly, After He rose from the Dead it seems he spoke with His Mother First than His Disciples.”
Jesus did not speak to His mother first – it was to Mary Magdalene as you can read here in Mark 16:9 –
Now when Jesus was risen early the first day of the week, he appeared first to Mary Magdalene
And John 20:14-18
And when she had thus said, she turned herself back, and saw Jesus standing, and knew not that it was Jesus. Jesus saith unto her, Woman, why weepest thou? whom seekest thou? She, supposing him to be the gardener, saith unto him, Sir, if thou have borne him hence, tell me where thou hast laid him, and I will take him away. Jesus saith unto her, Mary. She turned herself, and saith unto him, Rabboni; which is to say, Master. Jesus saith unto her, Touch me not; for I am not yet ascended to my Father: but go to my brethren, and say unto them, I ascend unto my Father, and your Father; and to my God, and your God. Mary Magdalene came and told the disciples that she had seen the Lord, and that he had spoken these things unto her.
Ralph,
In fact as both Philo and Josephus point out the many of the Essenes did not marry and it was looked on by the Jewish culture as a sign of their dedication to God.
“Again, perceiving with more than ordinary acuteness and accuracy, what is alone or at least above all other things calculated to dissolve such associations, they repudiate marriage; and at the same time they practise continence in an eminent degree; for no one of the Essenes ever marries a wife . . . . This now is the enviable system of life of these Essenes, so that not only private individuals but even mighty kings, admiring the men, venerate their sect, and increase their dignity and majesty in a still higher degree by their approbation and by the honours which they confer on them.” Philo, Hypothetica 11.14-17
“These Essenes reject pleasures as an evil, but esteem continence, and the conquest over our passions, to be virtue. They neglect wedlock, but choose out other persons’ children, while they are pliable, and fit for learning, and esteem them to be of their kindred, and form them according to their own manners. They do not absolutely deny the fitness of marriage, and the succession of mankind thereby continued; but they guard against the lascivious behavior of women, and are persuaded that none of them preserve their fidelity to one man.” Josephus, Jewish War, 2.8.2
Thanks to Mark D Roberts for providing this material in a responce to the Da Vinci Code.
Again – I think some people had better go back to school to learn comprehension again. I have not stated that I believe that Jesus was married. I have said that I do not know and I don’t really care. I have seen evidence from scholars for both sides of the argument. So stop putting words into my mouth. All I was doing was indicating to Martin that the Bible is silent on whether Jesus was married or not and there is evidence for both sides of the argument. So instead of him saying “Jesus didn’t marry” as he did above, Martin should have said that he believes that Jesus didn’t marry.
Gundeck,
Who are the ‘Essenes’? I understand that they were Jewish in faith from your comments, but were they a religious group within the Jewish religion? A societal group? Were they a large group? Not making fun or asking trick questions, just asking because I have never heard of them.
Did Ralph actually say the word “evidence”. Well close-up shop and declare a holiday! You’ve never let evidence get in the way of your deeply “felt” beliefs before Ralph. The Bible is silent and yet there’s evidence on both sides of the argument? Well that’s a real trick. I will give it to you Ralph, you can always find somebody somewhere that said something about whatever you want to make a point about. That’s not scholarship Ralph, that’s data mining.
Maybe we should review all of the opinions regarding the resurrection of Jesus. We have the “swoon” theory, the “he arose in the hearts of his followers” theory and on-and-on. It’s speculation and supposition that keeps the Mormon faithful fat and happy and ignorant I might add.
Ralph,
The Essenes were a small religious group that existed from the 2nd century BC to the 1st century AD. The Dead Sea Scrolls are thought to come from one or more of their libraries.
Ralph,
Sorry for the confusion and the way I worded it, I meant to say, He spoke with His mother First before supposedly speaking with His wife.
Maybe it’s just me, But if I were married, then Killed and rose from the dead, I would want to see my wife and kids first. Granted they might not be around when I rose from the dead, But I would get word out to them to come see me, or I would go Find them. Not Send word out to my friends before my wife. Rick b
I have never said that it was the doctrine of the Church that Christ was married. I said I have read the verious evidence for and against it and I personally believe that he was.
I again will say that in John he is called, not invited. It is a small difference, but enough of one to allow for either interpretation. Even with all the custom quoted, the story can still be seen in either way, and that is the point.
There really is no point in continuing this thread. The doctrine in question has been adiquitly explained, and nothing further can be gained by tossing words back and forth.
Shematwater,
The KJV does translate the Greek word “kaleo” to “called” but “invited” is also a proper translation of the word and since there is no “calling” of the groom in first century Jewish wedding traditions the story does not lend itself to Jesus being the Groom no matter what translation you prefer.
My point is and always has been that there is clear teaching in the Bible concerning marriage that contradicts the doctrines of Joseph Smith. Matt 19:1-12 is the best and clearest teaching we have from Jesus Christ himself on the subject. You have explained the extra-biblical doctrinal claims that your Church teaches concerning marriage and salvation, but you have still provided no historical or biblical precedent for them.
It is such a huge stretch to make the case that Jesus was married simply because He was at a wedding.
If Jesus was married because He was at a wedding, then I think the Bible would mention more of His wedding and that His friends would speak on it more.
I have been to a few weddings of Friends and have done 4 wedding Cakes, Does this mean I have 4 wives?
I also gave scripture showing How if Jesus was married then He has to be a terrible husband. His Mission was to be the Lamb who was slain to save us from eternal Death. That is not loving His wife if He marries Her and does not tell her He MUST DIE. If He did tell her, Still it’s Not Good to marry her have a Child, Be killed then Rise from the dead and 40 days later rise up into heaven and leave His wife and Child behind.
But then again, when has truth and Logic ever stopped people from believing what they want. Rick b
Jesus was not married. If it were an important spiritual practice, he would have been married, and the Bible would have announced it as an important practice. End of story. No one reading the NT would say “oh yes, Jesus was married to fulfill all righteousness and enter celestial kingdom.” You can’t get that from the Bible, no matter how hard you try, it is not there. But the holy scripture does indeed tell us that Jesus fulfilled ALL righteousness. ALL. So if marriage is a requirement for exaltation, he would have fulfilled it in his earthly ministry and expounded upon it’s importance. However, no such thing is in the Bible. What does the Bible emphasize? Salvation by grace through faith. Jesus DID teach holy communion and baptism – the means by which God gives, seals, and confirms faith in His children. The faith which God plants in our hearts is to be completely without reservation in the finished work of Jesus Christ on the cross. It is through the preaching of God’s Word that people place their faith in Jesus. Marriage has nothing to do with it, otherwise Jesus would have told us and his marriage would not only be in the Bible, but strongly featured as one of the most important aspects. Jesus PERFECTLY obeyed God.
gundeck and mobaby,
I admire how the Christian posters go to the scriptures and point out clearly what the scriptures say based, not on some flight of fancy interpretation, but solid exegesis. However, part of my broken record presentation is that none of that matters in the world of Mormonism. Mormonism has a particular brand of revelation, inspiration all tied together with a feelings base confirmation that what they think is true. They also reject evidence saying that it’s from man not the Mormon god so no matter how pragmatic and provable in the natural world, it doesn’t count. There’s a mind set in Mormonism that can’t be penetrated by reason.
Good work any way……..even you Rick!
I know the two thoughts from mormons are, Jesus was married because He was at a wedding, or I do not care, their is evidence to prove either side to be true.
Here is the problems with this, If Jesus was married, As I showed He was a terrible husband, so bad in fact that He goes against Scripture. That is not the Jesus that died to save me from my eternal damnation.
The Problem with the, I see both sides is, The evidence “Proving” He was married is nothing more that He was at a wedding. What kind of Evidence is that.
Let me share a real life example of crappy evidence. Sad as it is, My wife’s family is very hateful and Do not like me and never have. Some claim to be believers and buy into the health and wealth Gospel, and I confront their error with Scripture.
My Wife’s dad and step mom told my wife she has MS because she is living in sin, When I asked, why is it then (You) speaking to her dad have Epilepsy, the response was, Well were so Righteous, the Devil is attacking us. You gotta be kidding me.
Then as a result of all the problems, My oldest son who is 11 was accused of stealing 200 dollars from his grandmother, My wife’s mom.
When I confronted her on this issue the story goes, 9 months ago My 3 kids were over her house, the guy that lives with her, My wife’s sisters brother left 200 dollars rent money on top of the fridge was missing, so it had to of been my son.
The ONLY evidence was they said so, then they wait 9 months to bring it up. But then again, why let lack of evidence, truth and logic get in the way of what we want. I since told them all to stay out of our lives and never speak to us again. Rick b
Regarding Rick’s “crappy evidence”: Wow… you can’t accuse us of only showing our victory faces here! Thanks for sharing this difficult example, Rick. Even in so-called or self-labeled Christian families (Speaking of what I observe of your relatives’ behavior, as relayed by you), there exists a fair bit of garbage. Over time, that adds up, and pushes us to end all forms of relationship. I can really hear your frustration and disgust with the evidence and accusation. I am sorry that that is where your relatives are. I can hope and pray that someday in the future there can be reconciliation and healing.
Uh, there I go again, getting off the thread! But I kind of like this. We can laugh, cry, yell and other stuff here. Thanks for being open, Rick.
Nice job on your last post Rick.
This is how I follow the Mormon train of thought…..and I’ve learned to think Mormon since I’ve been hanging around MC. Jesus needs to be married to make it in (or back in, was he there before he was here?) to the Celestial Kingdom. If the Bible doesn’t say he was married, he was (married) because he had to be!
Another one: Jesus was married, but becsuse of the great apostasy it was left out of the Bible along with all of the other Mormon stuff that was practiced and taught by the first century Church.
How about this one: I wondered if Jesus was married and I prayed about it and god (Mormon form) confirmed it to me by a burning in my bosom. This last one is a stretch but I thought I’d give it a go.
I was watching this documentary about a few families in the FLDS and the husband-god of one of the families revealed this to his wives…that Jesus was married. He was quite ego-smug about it and very arrogantly confident. The wives sucked it up because the husband-god was really displaying some big time spirituality.
So anything and everything can work when you learn to think Mormon!
Another thought?
If Jesus was married, and as Falcon pointed out, it simply was lost from the Bible or Forgotten, Then How come their is no mention of it in the BoM?
I thought the BoM was supposed to clarify things, and since Marriage is of HIGH IMPORTANCE FOR SALVATION, Then it should be in the BoM. That could go along with my Bruce Mc Challange. Rick b
No Rick, the Mormon god reveals things in time. It wasn’t revealed at the time Joe Smith was translating the BoM plates (by way of his magic rock in his hat technique). This would have been revealed latter, probably around the time in Nauvoo when the angel with the big sword showed up and told Joe that if he didn’t start marrying more women the angel would have to kill him. That was a pretty tough choice and I’ll bet Joe brooded over it for about a half a second. And it was about the time he started introducing Free Mason rituals (also part of ancient secret information) to his trusted followers.
So Rick “there’s so much we don’t know” but it will be revealed, but don’t look in the Bible because Mormonism isn’t in there.