Posted on 09/12/2014 6:28:11 PM PDT by matthewrobertolson
According to Latter-Day Saints (LDS, Mormon) President Orson Hyde, Jesus was married to several women, including Mary Magdalene, and had biological children.
"..[In John 2,] Jesus was the bridegroom at the marriage of Cana of Galilee, and he told them what to do. Now there was actually a marriage; and if Jesus was not the bridegroom on that occasion, please tell who was. ... We say it was Jesus Christ who was married, to be brought into the relation whereby he could see his seed, before he was crucified. ... I do not despise to be called a son of Abraham, if he had a dozen wives; or to be called a brother, a son, a child of the Savior, if he had Mary, and Martha, and several others, as wives; and though he did cast seven devils out of one of them, it is all the same to me. ... I shall say here, that before the Savior died, he looked upon his own natural children, as we look upon ours; he saw his seed, and immediately afterwards he was cut off from the earth; but who shall declare his generation?"
-- Hyde, at the Mormon General Conference, on 6 October 1854. (Printed in Journal of Discourses, Vol. 2, p. 82.)
Apparently, this position had support from Brigham Young, Wilford Woodruff, Orson Pratt, and others.
The LDS organization has since denied these claims. A spokesman said, "The belief that Christ was married has never been official Church doctrine. It is neither sanctioned nor taught by the Church. While it is true that a few Church leaders in the mid-1800s expressed their opinions on the matter, it was not then, and is not now, Church doctrine."
Still, Hyde's is an allowed position within Mormonism. That is concerning.
Of course, Christ is the figurative Bridegroom -- but He is not so literally, in a carnal sense! Also, for the record, the "seed" of His mentioned in Isaiah 53:10 refers to our spiritual relationship with Him, in the sense of John 12:24 and Galatians 3:26.
—
Follow me, Answering Protestants, and Catholic Analysis on Twitter, Like Answering Protestants and Catholic Analysis on Facebook, Add Answering Protestants and Catholic Analysis to your Circles on Google+, and Subscribe to me or Catholic Analysis on YouTube.
—
Romney did not according to the polls lose evangelical vote
Bingo!!!!!
A serious problem at FR is many Catholics fighting tooth and nail for Mormonism, and defending it, as they take on their fellow Christians.
The blog this article is from is trying to elevate the Mormon cult into being a part of the Christian faith.
A blog promoting Mormonism and making yet more Catholics open to Mormon conversion as they come to believe that it is a Christian denomination.
Probably, fondly as Joseph smith said he was the next mohamad.
Sounds a bit like Mormonism where a subtle underclass of at least 50% don't participate at all and are called Apostates by about 10-20% of the pseudo-sophisticated elitist Mormon royalty. IMHO
Elsie probably has accurate statistics regarding how many still have their papers. (TR)
Romney lost because he didn’t have the necessary equipment located below the belt to challenge with authority the asshats and lightweights that got away with their lying record whether it be Benghazi and all the rest of the shit he let pass.
No balls no glory...
The married/unmarried question doesn’t have equal sides. A wife WOULD have been in the narrative.
That is a fact. But you may want look again at the links contained in the post and the mindset of the poster of the thread which is pretty well sumerized in post 73. I would contend that (although he is misguided) his intent was to once again denigrate Protestants.
And a disengenuous game at that.
Corrupt and dishonest, anti-Christian people, can create a blog to spread their anti-Christian nonsense, and evidently do.
So do I. The possibility that a lot of us (maybe most of us after so much time) have the blood and DNA of Jesus as part of our ancestry is uplifting and spiritually a positive thought.
How about Mormonism as a profit-driven group of corporations and individuals using tax advantage to expand their corporate and private empires? And then there’s their “religious” practices as a way of keeping others away.
There is mention of a “beloved disciple” in the scriptures. It would have been unusual for a practicing Jew of those times to be unmarried beyond his teen years. Maybe that disciple was His spouse. Someday He’ll tell us.
We interrupt this Thread Hijacking to bring you an actual answer to the original question:
Jesus was INVITED to the wedding.
If He was the groom, he would not have needed an invitation.
You don’t need an invitation to your own wedding....
We now return you to your Thread Hijacking already in progress
The rest of your questions are red herrings.
Wait....you acknowledge mormonISM is not Christianity but are going to lump mormonS into a group called Protestants anyway?
The real question is why?
So your statements appears to be saying it’s not about Christ it’s about a group called Catholics - got it.
And you will decide who is or who is not a Christian, not by what they teach but whether they belong to a group called catholic.
As a side not I looked up all the verses which tell a person will become a Christian and not one adds and you better be a catholic.
He already has. The church is His bride, and He is not an adulterer.
Now, THAT is the quote of the thread. LOL. Pax. :)
That is an absurd affirmation of an argument from one who does not have one, as the real question is,
Many Catholics deny the roots of Mormonism in Catholicism due to their own "bizarre" beliefs which flow from the same foundation (Scripture being a second class at best authority).
In contrast to the most fundamental distinctive of the Reformation, that of Scripture being the sole supreme supreme authority as literally being the wholly inspired Word of God, both Mormonism and Catholicism,
1. Operate under the premise of their church being the one true church with apostolic succession.
2. Operate under the premise of their church being the supreme authority.
3. Both promote assurance of Truth being based upon the premise of their assured veracity.
4. Both exalt a supreme leader as conditionally infallible, (though in the LDS this is not formally stated, yet it has and is effectively taught).
5. Both claim only their interpretation of Scripture and history is assuredly correct in any conflict.
6. Both make another stream of revelation equal to (and effectively superior to), Scripture.
7. Both hold their ministers are distinctively a unique class of priests.
8. Both have skewed extreme views of marriage, one requiring clerical celibacy (with rare exceptions) and the other as requiring marriage of all.
9. Both hold to a concept of a heavenly mother/goddess.
11. Both teach a false bodily return of Christ, one really truly being worshiped in the flesh "under the appearances of Bread and wine" and the other by bodily appearing in America.
12. Both teach salvation by grace thru obedience to their particular elitist church and attack all those without it.
13. Both teach a postmorteum place of the departed other than Hell or being with the Lord.
14. Both teach many specific things and events not found in Scripture, and contrary to it, from <a href="http://peacebyjesus.witnesstoday.org/ptds.html "> praying to the departed </a> in Heaven, having uniquely Divine attributes, to them being gods.
How do you think you all appear to the only real Christians (Catholics) with your bizarre denials of basic Catholic doctrines. - verga
Rather, how do you think you all appear to the only real Christians (those of NT faith) with your bizarre unScriptural additions and denials of NT faith?
The deformation of the church was progressive, and as the body of Christ always endured, though the visible manifestations of it were never perfect, but the church of Rome in particular, as the one taking up most of the broad way calling itself "Christian," stands in fundamental contrast to the NT church as manifested in Scripture. Which,
1. Was not based upon the premise of perpetual assured infallibility of office, as per Rome which has presumed to infallibly declare that she is and will perpetually be infallible whenever she speaks in accordance with her infallibly defined (scope and subject-based) formula, which renders her declaration that she is infallible, to be infallible, as well as all else she accordingly declares.
2. Never promised taught a perpetual assuredly infallible magisterium was necessary for preservation of truth, including writings to be established as Scripture, and for assurance of faith, and that historical descent and being the stewards of Scripture assured that such had assured infallibility.
3. Never was a church that manifested the Lord's supper as being the central means of grace, around which all else revolved, it being “the source and summit of the Christian faith” in which “the work of our redemption is accomplished,” by which one received spiritual life in themselves, so that without which eating one cannot have eternal life (as per RC literalism, of Jn. 6:53,54). In contrast to believing the gospel by which one is regenerated, (Acts 10:43-47; 15:7-9; Eph. 1:13) and desiring the milk (1Pt. 2:2) and then the “strong meat” (Heb. 5:12-14) of the word of God, being “nourished” (1Tim. 4:6) by hearing the word of God and letting it dwell in them, (Col. 3:16) by which word (Scriptures) man is to live by, (Mt. 4:4) as Christ lived by the Father, (Jn. 6:57) doing His will being His “meat.” (Jn. 4:34) And with the Lord's supper, which is only manifestly described once in the life of the church, focusing on the church being the body of Christ in showing the Lord sacrificial death by that communal meal.
4. Never had any pastors titled "priests" as they did not engage in any unique sacrificial function, that of turning bread into human flesh and dispensing it to the people, or even dispensing bread as their primary ordained function, versus preaching the word. (2Tim. 4:2)
5. Never differentiated between bishops and elders, and with grand titles ("Most Reverend Eminence," “Very Reverend,” “Most Illustrious and Most Reverend Lord,” “His Eminence Cardinal,” “The Most Reverend the Archbishop,” etc.) or made themselves distinct by their ostentatious pompous garb. (Matthew 23:5-7) Or were all to be formally called “father” as that would require them to be spiritual fathers to all (Mt. 23:8-10 is a form of hyperbole, reproving the love of titles such as Catholicism examples, and “thinking of men above that which is written, and instead the Lord emphasizes the One Father of all who are born of the Spirit, whom He Himself worked to glorify).
6. Never required clerical celibacy as the norm, (1Tim. 3:17) which presumes all such have that gift, (1Cor. 7:7) or otherwise manifested that celibacy was the norm among apostles and pastors, or had vowed to be so. (1Cor. 9:4; Titus 1:5,6)
7. Never taught that Peter was the "rock" of Mt. 16:18 upon which the church is built, interpreting Mt. 16:18, rather than upon the rock of the faith confessed by Peter, thus Christ Himself. (For in contrast to Peter, that the LORD Jesus is the Rock (“petra”) or "stone" (“lithos,” and which denotes a large rock in Mk. 16:4) upon which the church is built is one of the most abundantly confirmed doctrines in the Bible (petra: Rm. 9:33; 1Cor. 10:4; 1Pet. 2:8; cf. Lk. 6:48; 1Cor. 3:11; lithos: Mat. 21:42; Mk.12:10-11; Lk. 20:17-18; Act. 4:11; Rm. 9:33; Eph. 2:20; cf. Dt. 32:4, Is. 28:16) including by Peter himself. (1Pt. 2:4-8) Rome's current catechism attempts to have Peter himself as the rock as well, but also affirms: “On the rock of this faith confessed by St Peter, Christ build his Church,” (pt. 1, sec. 2, cp. 2, para. 424) which understanding some of the so-called “church fathers” concur with.)
8. Never taught or exampled that all the churches were to look to Peter as the bishop of Rome, as the first of a line of supreme heads reigning over all the churches, and having the last word in questions affecting the whole Church.
9. Never recorded or taught any apostolic successors (like for James: Acts 12:1,2) after Judas who was to maintain the original 12: Rv. 21:14) or elected any apostolic successors by voting, versus casting lots (no politics). (Acts 1:15ff)
10. Never recorded or manifested (not by conjecture) sprinkling or baptism without repentant personal faith, that being the stated requirement for baptism. (Acts 2:38; 8:36-38)
11. Never preached a gospel of salvation which begins with becoming good enough inside (formally justified due to infused interior charity), via sprinkling or baptism in recognition of proxy faith, and which usually ends with becoming good enough to enter glory via suffering in purgatory, commencing at death.
12. Never supported or made laws that restricted personal reading of Scripture by laity (contrary to Chrysostom), if able and available, sometimes even outlawing it when it was.
13. Never used the sword of men to deal with its theological dissenters.
14. Never taught that the deity Muslims worship (who is not as an unknown god) is the same as theirs.
15. Never had a separate class of believers called “saints.”
16. Never prayed to anyone in Heaven but the Lord, or were instructed to (i.e. "our Mother who art in Heaven) who were able to hear and respond to virtually unlimited prayers addressed to them.
17. Never recorded a women who never sinned, and was a perpetual virgin despite being married (contrary to the normal description of marriage, as in leaving and sexually cleaving) and who would be bodily assumed to Heaven and exalted,
• an almost almighty demigoddess to whom "Jesus owes His Precious Blood" to,
• whose [Mary] merits we are saved by,
• who "had to suffer, as He did, all the consequences of sin,"
• and was bodily assumed into Heaven, which is a fact (unsubstantiated in Scripture or even early Tradition) because the Roman church says it is, and "was elevated to a certain equality with the Heavenly Father,"
• and whose power now "is all but unlimited,"
• for indeed she "seems to have the same power as God,"
• "surpassing in power all the angels and saints in Heaven,"
• so that "the Holy Spirit acts only by the Most Blessed Virgin, his Spouse."
• and that “sometimes salvation is quicker if we remember Mary's name then if we invoked the name of the Lord Jesus,"
• for indeed saints have "but one advocate," and that is Mary, who "alone art truly loving and solicitous for our salvation,"
• Moreover, "there is no grace which Mary cannot dispose of as her own, which is not given to her for this purpose,"
• and who has "authority over the angels and the blessed in heaven,"
• including "assigning to saints the thrones made vacant by the apostate angels,"
• whom the good angels "unceasingly call out to," greeting her "countless times each day with 'Hail, Mary,' while prostrating themselves before her, begging her as a favour to honour them with one of her requests,"
• and who (obviously) cannot "be honored to excess,"
• and who is (obviously) the glory of Catholic people, whose "honor and dignity surpass the whole of creation." Sources and more .
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.