Posted on 09/01/2007 8:44:09 AM PDT by Ottofire
Dan Brown's fictional novel (emphasis on fictional) The DaVinci Code insists that Jesus was married and that he had a child named Sarah with his wife Mary Magdalene. Such a theory is hardly unique. Several Mormon leaders insisted that Jesus was married, but like Brown, none of them offered any more than pure conjecture to support such a claim. Unlike Brown, LDS leaders have gone on record saying Jesus was not only married, but that he was a polygamist as well!
On October 6, 1854, Mormon Apostle Orson Hyde stated, "How was it with Mary and Martha, and other women that followed him [Jesus]? In old times, and it is common in this day, the women, even as Sarah, called their husbands Lord; the word Lord is tantamount to husband in some languages, master, lord, husband, are about synonymous... When Mary of old came to the sepulchre on the first day of the week, instead of finding Jesus she saw two angels in white, 'And they say unto her, Woman, why weepest thou?' She said unto them,' Because they have taken away my Lord,' or husband, 'and I know not where they have laid him.' 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.' Is there not here manifested the affections of a wife. These words speak the kindred ties and sympathies that are common to that relation of husband and wife" (Journal of Discourses 2:81).
In that same talk he went on to say:
"Now there was actually a marriage; and if Jesus was not the bridegroom on that occasion, please tell who was. If any man can show this, and prove that it was not the Savior of the world, then I will acknowledge I am in error. 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" (Journal of Discourses 2:82).
Answering Hyde's specific question is difficult because scripture gives no indication about who was married on that occasion in Cana. Since Mary, the mother of Jesus, was somehow involved in the preparation, it has been surmised that it could have been a relative, but no concrete evidence is available. One thing is certain, though; this could not have possibly been the wedding of Jesus. John 2:2 makes it abundantly clear that Jesus and His disciples were invited to this event, and since Jewish grooms are not usually invited to their own wedding, it is ridiculous to agree with Hyde's very flawed assumption.
It appears that Hyde's teaching was readily accepted by the LDS leadership. We find no record of Hyde being admonished for teaching such a notion. In fact, we find that he made a similar comment six months later. On March 18, 1855 Hyde said:
"I discover that some of the Eastern papers represent me as a great blasphemer, because I said, in my lecture on Marriage, at our last Conference, that Jesus Christ was married at Cana of Galilee, that Mary, Martha, and others were his wives, and that he begat children" (Journal of Discourses 2:210).
Mormon Apostle Orson Pratt agreed with his contemporary when he wrote, "One thing is certain, that there were several holy women that greatly loved Jesus -- such as Mary, and Martha her sister, and Mary Magdalene; and Jesus greatly loved them, and associated with them much; and when He arose from the dead, instead of showing Himself to His chosen witnesses, the Apostles, He appeared first to these women, or at least to one of them -- namely, Mary Magdalene. Now it would be natural for a husband in the resurrection to appear first to his own dear wives, and afterwards show himself to his other friends. If all the acts of Jesus were written, we no doubt should learn that these beloved women were His wives" (The Seer, p.159).
On page 172 of the same book, Pratt wrote, "We have now clearly shown that God, the Father had a plurality of wives, one or more being in eternity, by whom He begat our spirits as well as the spirit of Jesus His First Born... We have also proved most clearly that the Son followed the example of his Father, and became the great Bridegroom to whom kings' daughters and many honorable Wives to be married."
On July 22, 1883, Wilford Woodruff recorded the words of Joseph F. Smith in his journal. At the time Woodruff was an LDS apostle while Smith was a member of the First Presidency serving as second counselor to President John Taylor. Woodruff wrote, "Evening Meeting. Prayer By E Stephenson. Joseph F Smith spoke One hour & 25 M. He spoke upon the Marriage in Cana at Galilee. He thought Jesus was the Bridgegroom and Mary & Martha the brides. He also refered to Luke 10 ch. 38 to 42 verse, Also John 11 ch. 2 & 5 vers John 12 Ch 3d vers, John 20 8 to 18. Joseph Smith spoke upon these passages to show that Mary & Martha manifested much Closer relationship than Merely A Believer which looks Consistet. He did not think that Jesus who decended throug Poligamous families from Abraham down & who fulfilled all the Law even baptism by immersion would have lived and died without being married." (Wilford Woodruff's Journal 8:187, July 22, 1883, spelling left intact).
To my knowledge there is no evidence to indicate that Woodruff disagreed with Smith's comments. Woodruff and Smith later became Mormonism's fourth and sixth presidents.
Was this just a nineteenth century Mormon notion? Not entirely. In a letter dated March 17, 1963, Joseph Fielding Smith was asked if the phrase "he shall see his seed" mentioned in Isaiah 53:10 meant that Christ had children. In the letter it also mentioned that "only through temple marriage can we receive the highest degree of exaltation and dwell in the presence of our Heavenly Father" and since Christ came to set an example, is it correct to assume that Jesus was married? When Smith responded to this letter, he held the position of an LDS apostle. He would later become Mormonism's 10th president after the death of David O. McKay in January of 1970.
Rather than retype the inquirer's questions, Smith handwrote his reply at the bottom of the letter. To the first question he gave a reference from the Book of Mormon, Mosiah 15:10-12, admonishing the inquirer to "Please Read Your Book of Mormon!" The contexts of these passages do not say that Jesus had children. Instead it implies that Jesus' seed are those whose sins Jesus has borne. However, Joseph Fielding Smith answered the second question (Was Jesus married?) by writing, "Yes! But do not preach it! The Lord advised us not to cast pearls before swine!" Underneath his reply bore the signature of Joseph Fielding Smith.
Such comments caused the LDS Church public relations team to go into damage control mode. An article in the May 17, 2006 issue of the Deseret News titled "LDS do not endorse claims in 'DaVinci'" stated, "LDS doctrine does not endorse claims made in a popular book and movie that Jesus Christ was married." The article went on to quote LDS Church spokesperson Dale Bills who had said this just a day earlier: "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."
Such a disclaimer once again exposes the duplicity of the LDS Church. Mormons often boast that their church is a restoration of the New Testament model. They also claim to have men who are called by God to instruct the LDS membership in teachings that are allegedly true. Yet, when they are confronted with embarrassing comments from these leaders, this same church distances itself from such remarks. Notice I said distance and not denounced. Nowhere does Bills say that such teachings are not true; rather, they just aren't "official." This is, dare I say, the official way the Mormon leadership gets itself out of awkward jams. The problem is, as I have often said, the LDS Church cannot supply a definition of the word official that has been consistent throughout its history. Still, we have enough information from church manuals to show that Bills statement is certainly misleading at best.
Is Bills' being totally honest when he relegates these teachings to mere opinion? No, he isn't.
Notice the date of Orson Hyde's first comment above. Hyde's talk was given on October 6, 1854, in conference. Conference is held twice a year and addresses given at these events are not taken lightly by most Latter-day Saints. Fifteenth President Ezra Taft Benson even referred to them as a member's "marching orders" for the next six months (Teachings of Ezra Taft Benson, p. 335).
Consider also that the quotes supplied above are statements from very prominent members of the LDS Church leadership, three of whom would go on to become Mormon prophets. Is Bills really trying to imply that these men were speaking irresponsibly? I don't believe that at all. This is just another case of the LDS Church hiding behind words and counting on an ignorant public. If we had three apostles agreeing on a specific teaching in the New Testament, it can be certain that it would, without question, be considered Christian doctrine.
Furthermore, in 1945 the General Priesthood Committee of the Council of the Twelve commissioned a book to be written by Seventy Milton R. Hunter that was to be "used by all high priest's, seventies', and elders' classes in their weekly meetings, beginning January 1, 1946." The Gospel Through the Ages was to present "the story of the plan of life and salvation which was instituted by our Heavenly father and His Only Begotten Son in the spirit world before man was placed upon the earth; and it discusses the revelations of eternal truths from Adam's day forward" (Preface, p.vii).
On page 18 of The Gospel Through the Ages it lists the "Gospel Ordinances" that must be practiced by "the sons and daughters of God" if they hope to get back into the presence of God. "Such ordinances as baptism, confirmation, temple ordinances, priesthood ordinations, marriage, and others, are all part of the Gospel plan of Salvation" (emphasis mine.). On the following page it states that "Jesus Christ, the only perfect man who has lived on this earth, was perfect because He obeyed all the principles and ordinances of the Gospel in order that He 'might fulfill all righteousness'" (emphasis mine). If that is so, then Bills is misleading the public when he relegates the above comments to mere opinion.
But let us assume for the sake of argument that such teachings were mere opinion. Are Latter-day Saints given the option to treat comments from general authorities as they would a restaurant salad bar, picking and choosing only what appeals to them? Well, according to one LDS Church manual, "Prophets have the right to personal opinions. Not every word they speak should be thought of as an official interpretation or pronouncement. However, their discourses to the Saints, and their official writings should be considered products of their official prophetic calling and should be heeded" (Teachings of the Living Prophets, p.21. Emphasis mine).
Are we to assume that the LDS leadership and its PR department don't read their church's manuals? Or are we to assume that they hope the membership doesn't? One thing is abundantly clear and that is the LDS Church is of often guilty of teaching two messages -- one for the membership and one for the general public. May our Lord expose this duplicity and in doing so cause Mormons everywhere to see that their church has no intention of being truthful when it comes to its teachings or history.
contact@mrm.org Some rights reserved
But Jesus’ metaphors carry weight. As Jesus is the Groom, He gains federal headship over the whole of the church, becoming the head of the household so to speak.
This is, speaking as a layman, how Jesus’ perfect life is transfered to His bride. He becomes the one that takes all the judgement, hence the required sacrifice, and His righteousness is covers all the churches transgressions.
As a Christian, I need to point out that Jesus was God from the beginning, (John 1:1) and there is only one God (Isaiah 44:6). I understand that J. Smith says we have a tainted Bible. Does the Mormon Church have any proof, besides the revelation of J.S. or the other Mormon Apostles? (It is pretty clear that the Isaiah passage that we have in the current bible is the same as that found in the Dead Sea scrolls. So it was not Paul or the apostles that corrupted that text...)
>>“why does the Mormon church not use the Prophet JS’s translation?”
>Some parts have been accepted as scripture, like the Book of Moses and JST Matthew 24. The rest is an unfinished work in progress. He was killed before he was done so we use it more as a study aid.
Has any subsequent Mormon Apostles received further revelation on the JST, or is this something which will be revealed in the future? I am sure we both agree that God normally keeps someone around until their work is finished or until someone else can finish it...He IS God.
(It seems like I need to have a disclaimer to state I am a Reformed Christian, and NOT a Mormon, and I am just trying to learn more of what the Mormon Church teaches. I do not agree with much, if any, that the Mormon Church teaches. I pray to the Lord Jesus that I am asking in a respectful manner, and even though I disagree, am not being disagreeable.)
“But Jesus’ metaphors carry weight.”
I don’t know what you mean by ‘weight’, they certainly carry meaning. Christ is the head of the Church just as a husband is head of the family and there are various similarities between the roles of the two relationships, but I don’t see how that rules out entering in to a literal marriage. Marriage is also a fit metaphor for a Bishop’s role over his ward, yet being the husband of a wife is specified as as requirement for a Bishop.
“I understand that J. Smith says we have a tainted Bible. Does the Mormon Church have any proof, besides the revelation of J.S. or the other Mormon Apostles?”
The Book of Mormon teaches that there were many ‘plain and precious’ things lost from the Biblical record. The Bible itself contains the proof that the Bible is not complete. Here is a list of some scriptures mentioned in the Bible that we no longer have any copies of, anywhere:
book of the Wars of the Lord (Num. 21: 14)
book of Jasher (Josh. 10: 13; 2 Sam. 1: 18)
book of the acts of Solomon (1 Kgs. 11: 41)
book of Samuel the seer (1 Chr. 29: 29)
book of Gad the seer (1 Chr. 29: 29)
book of Nathan the prophet (1 Chr. 29: 29; 2 Chr. 9: 29)
prophecy of Ahijah (2 Chr. 9: 29)
visions of Iddo the seer (2 Chr. 9: 29; 2 Chr. 12: 15; 2 Chr. 13: 22)
book of Shemaiah (2 Chr. 12: 15)
book of Jehu (2 Chr. 20: 34)
sayings of the seers (2 Chr. 33: 19)
an epistle of Paul to the Corinthians, earlier than our present 1 Corinthians (1 Cor. 5: 9)
possibly an earlier epistle to the Ephesians (Eph. 3: 3)
an epistle to the Church at Laodicea (Col. 4: 16)
prophecies of Enoch, known to Jude (Jude 1: 14)
We also believe the biblical text that exists is not a perfect record of the original, although it is the removal of material that is more concerning to us. The variations seen among existing manuscripts show it is possible, and there are historical records that indicate there were alterations made in the 2nd century ( for details see: http://www.fairlds.org/FAIR_Conferences/1999_Corruption_of_Scripture_in_the_Second_Century.html ), but absolute proof would require original manuscripts, none of which exist as far as man knows.
We also believe that even prophets can make honest mistakes about details. 2 Chronicles 2:2 says that it took 153,600 men to build Solomon’s Temple. 1 Kings 5:13 says that the labor force was only 30,000 men working in three shifts of 10,000 each. According to the Bible, the earth is flat (see Isaiah 11:12, Jeremiah 49:32, Revelation 7:1, Deuteronomy 33:17; Job 28:24, etc.). Moses claimed that the hare “cheweth the cud” (Lev. 11:6)— they don’t. How many angels were at Christ’s tomb (see Matt. 28:2, Mark 16:5, Luke 24:4, and John 10:12)? Matthew wrote that the title on the cross above Jesus read: “This is Jesus the King of the Jews” (Matt. 27:37), while Mark claimed that the title simply read: “The King of the Jews” (Mark 15:26). Luke, however, recorded that the title read: “This is the King of the Jews” (Luke 23:38), and John claimed that the title read: “Jesus of Nazareth the King of the Jews” (John 19:19).
Likewise, we don’t claim the Book of Mormon to be exempt from the weaknesses of the men who wrote it. At one point, Lehi had a great vision, his son Nephi sought in faith to have the same vision and to understand the meaning of it. Some of the details Nephi noticed were overlooked or forgotten by his father in his account.
None of this alters the fact that we hold both the Bible and the Book of Mormon as scripture.
“Has any subsequent Mormon Apostles received further revelation on the JST, or is this something which will be revealed in the future?”
As far as I know, nobody has worked on it since. It never was a priority task.
We expect that some day we will will have a perfect and complete Bible, as well as testements from the rest of the tribes of Isreal (the Bible being the testement of the Jews and the Book of Mormon being the testement of the tribe of Joseph), plus the Book of Mormon we have is missing the Book of Lehi, and even with that it is only 1/3 of the gold plates Joseph received. The other 2/3 were sealed closed by a strap of metal holding them shut, they will be translated at a later time when God deems it right.
Most members don’t expect any of these major additions to happen until after the second coming, but you never know. There is always the possibility of the Prophet reciving new revelations and having them included in existing scriptures as well.
“I am sure we both agree that God normally keeps someone around until their work is finished or until someone else can finish it...He IS God.”
Yes, Joseph’s life was spared miraculously several times. A few months before he was killed he finished all he needed to do and said (quoting from memory here) ‘Now it doesn’t matter what happens to me, even if they kill me.’ God keeps a prophet around long enough to finish the work God wants them to finish, but that doesn’t mean they get to finish everything they want to finish.
“I am just trying to learn more of what the Mormon Church teaches. I do not agree with much, if any, that the Mormon Church teaches. I pray to the Lord Jesus that I am asking in a respectful manner, and even though I disagree, am not being disagreeable.”
No problem, you are doing fine. You might want to read the Book of Mormon sometime, or surf over to mormon.org or lds.org and see what is there.
>>Humor making fun of, is one thing, but profanity just shows where that spite was conjured up from!<<
I didn;’t even notice profanity when I posted it - I guess I’m of a generation where what was labeled as profanity doesn’t necessarily seem like spite to me.
>>And that’s teh most important part—they live exemplary lives. Husbands are faithful, kids like being with their parents, God and family come first and they are loyal Americans. But the media is going to pulverize the religious tenets thereby minimizing at best the good behavior. It is no coincidence that Mitt Romney is on the scene and “Big Love” and “September Dawn” are on the screen.<<
I wish I could disagree with you.
I would add that the goodness of family came through in the first season before it became so soap opera-like.
And BTW, I would have asterisked out that phrase if I had noticed it. I promise I did not purposefully post profanity to the religion forum.
I guess most of that prody was fun accept for the oh well...
That has happen to me I have posted things I did not read all the way through and yikes!:)
Marriage on the other hand can be done with the sealing power. When it is done in the temple is called the "new and everlasting covenant of marriage". When it comes to marraige in the temple, "sealing" and "marraige" are used interchangeably in lay terms (even by Mormons) but there are some differences in how the terms should be used technically.
Jesus clearly did not believe in plural marriage. His discourses on adultery and marriage say so, and in particular, his point premised on Adam & Eve was that these two united into one flesh.
Paul’s requirement that leaders of the church have no more than one wife derives from this teaching. Christianity is unique in its high regard for women.
The bible also demonstrates the damage of polygamy in every instance in which it is depicted in the bible.
When it comes to marraige in the temple, "sealing" and "marraige" are used interchangeably in lay terms (even by Mormons) but there are some differences in how the terms should be used technically.
From the LDS.org site:
From another revelation to the Prophet Joseph, we learn that there are three degrees within the celestial kingdom. To be exalted in the highest degree and continue eternally in family relationships, we must enter into "the new and everlasting covenant of marriage" and be true to that covenant. In other words, temple marriage is a requirement for obtaining the highest degree of celestial glory. (See D&C 131:1–4.) All who are worthy to enter into the new and everlasting covenant of marriage will have that opportunity, whether in this life or the next.
From: Kingdoms of Glory
What degree of glory is available to unmarrieds in the CK and what role are unmarrieds relegated to?
If a person who is unmarried, and prefers to stay that way while living, what is the method for them to be sealed to someone in order to reach exaltation? Proxy sealing after death?
No, he wasn’t.
Thanks for the input Mr. Lucky! Lol!
(Since you were the last thing which I see in this article, you get the one sickly response. Hopefully tomorrow after work I will be feeling better and will get to answer those few other posts directed at me.)
AUIGH!
Post...to...long...to...easily...peruse...
must...control...attention...span...
:o)
You are forgetting on the incompleteness of the scripture the prophecy of the Messiah being from Nazareth in Matthew.
But that is besides the point. The scriptures are not as complete as we would like. But it is sufficient for finding salvation. Imagine what would happen if we had all of the inspired texts in the original. There would be idolatry, as people would focus on the physical texts and not on what was said.
> The Book of Mormon teaches that there were many ‘plain and precious’ things lost from the Biblical record.
>Likewise, we don’t claim the Book of Mormon to be exempt from the weaknesses of the men who wrote it.
I agree. The book of Mormon has so many changes from the original while the Greek texts we have are pretty much the same content, (with most changes being small spelling, grammatical and punctuation errors) I cannot see how your point about completeness is actually brought up to defend Mormonism.
The Tanner’s, whom I am sure that you have heard of, counted 3913 changes in the book from the 1830 to the 1964 version, and from what I have seen, they are not small. ( http://www.utlm.org/onlinebooks/3913intro.htm )
Did they find the plates and get a better translation from them than J.S. had?
>We also believe that even prophets can make honest mistakes about details.
Nope. The scriptures state that 21”You may say in your heart, ‘How will we know the word which the LORD has not spoken?’
22”When a prophet speaks in the name of the LORD, if the thing does not come about or come true, that is the thing which the LORD has not spoken The prophet has spoken it presumptuously; you shall not be afraid of him. (Deut. 18:21-22)
The Bible was written by people, but inspired of God. It is written so that men can understand it, so that sometimes it seems to contradict itself. But it must be examined so that the contradictions are resolved. I am sure you can easily find the contradictions answered via google and some good Christian sites.
But this is besides the point. Let us imagine that the Lord Jesus Christ, heir to the House of David, King of Israel had heirs himself. That would re-establish the Kingdom on earth. The Da Vinci code all over again. We get a royal line in the direct line to the Messiah and God Himself. That blasphemy is undefendable.
I do, especially if you are the third or fourth wife.
Except that Jesus was the son of God and he was sent to save us from our sins, not to raise a family. If you don't think Jesus was the son of God, like the muslims, then you would think Jesus would pursue the flesh like men.
“The book of Mormon has so many changes from the original while the Greek texts we have are pretty much the same content, (with most changes being small spelling, grammatical and punctuation errors”
Variations between the biblical manuscripts are are not as minor as you portray them, especially when you look at all the manuscripts and not the just the oldest copies we have from various ‘families’ of manuscripts.
About 2/3 of the italicized words currently in the KJV were not even in the original KJV (italicized words indicate words not in the manuscript but added by the translator for clarity and grammar). Then you have the variations between the many different English Bible translations. For example, some leave out 1John 5:7, others include it, but there is no reliable manuscript evidence to support it being there and scholars consider it a later addition. All told the changes in the BoM are pretty minor by comparison.
“The Tanner’s, whom I am sure that you have heard of, counted 3913 changes in the book from the 1830 to the 1964 version, and from what I have seen, they are not small.”
The vast majority of BoM changes consist of such utterly insignificant things as breaking it up into chapters and verses, numbering the verses, correcting spelling and punctuation errors, typesetting errors being corrected and the addition of footnotes, chapter headings etc. etc. If you want valid, accurate, honest information, don’t go to the Tanners.
In a very few cases there are meaningful changes, and in all those cases the changes were made by Joseph Smith in editions published in his lifetime. These changes were made to clarify the meaning of the verse and have no impact on LDS doctrine. For example, ‘God’ or ‘Eternal Father’ can refer to Heavenly Father or Christ (Heavenly Father being the Eternal Father of our spirit, Christ the Eternal Father of our spiritual rebirth), and in some cases changes were made where those terms were use to make it clearer which member of the Godhead was being spoken of.
About the only complaint that comes close to legitimacy is over Mosiah 21:28, but such a minor factual error is of no doctrinal consequence at all, and very easily explained by the fact that Ammon left Nephite civilization on his mission to the Lamanites before Mosiah became king and so was very likely unaware of the change in rulership. You can also find many, many similar minor factual contradictions when comparing the 4 gospels and these are often point to as evidence that their testimony is sincere.
It is very easy for a Mormon to buy faithful reproduction of the 1830 edition BoM, several different companies sell electronic libraries of LDS publication to Mormons including the text of all BoM versions. There would be no market for these if we saw the 1830 edition as doctrinally lesser then the current version.
“>> We also believe that even prophets can make honest mistakes about details.
> Nope....(Deut. 18:21-22)”
Those verses don’t say a prophet can’t ever make an honest mistake. It is a fact that Issac gave Jacob a blessing thinking he was giving it to Jacob’s brother, he was mistaken, he was tricked. Joshua was fooled by the men of Gibeon (Joshua 9), and check 1 Kings 13 sometime too. There are more examples.
“The Bible was written by people, but inspired of God. It is written so that men can understand it, so that sometimes it seems to contradict itself.”
The Bible was written by people inspired of God, but that doesn’t make them infallible.
“Let us imagine that the Lord Jesus Christ, heir to the House of David, King of Israel had heirs himself. That would re-establish the Kingdom on earth. The Da Vinci code all over again.”
There are living descendants of David around today so there already is an heir to the House of David out there. Not sure if it would be possible to identify exactly who has the best claim to the throne but it isn’t ‘the Da Vinci code all over again’.
They were supposed to have a get together in May, not sure if it happened.
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=52450
“Jesus was the son of God”
Agreed.
“and he was sent to save us from our sins”
Yup.
“not to raise a family.”
Doesn’t say that anywhere, that is your assumption. I suppose you can walk and chew gum at the same time? Moses was sent to free Israel, that didn’t mean he couldn’t get married too.
“If you don’t think Jesus was the son of God, like the muslims, “
We aren’t like them, Christ is the Son of God.
“then you would think Jesus would pursue the flesh like men.”
And there is that unhealthy attitude towards sexuality I was speaking of. Marriage and raising a family is a wonderful, noble, godly, righteous thing, but you crassly slam it as pursuing the flesh. There is a big difference between lust and the kind of love God wants a man and woman to share.
You’ve been listening to man and not God. For what would it gain the Son of God to have an earthly family?
It serves nobody except those who live in the flesh. The Son of God was here for a purpose and not to be lead a stray by the devil.
“For what would it gain the Son of God to have an earthly family?”
What would it gain Christ to suffer and die on the cross? His life wasn’t about only doing what would give him a personal gain. Would it not be a blessing to a woman to have a righteous husband, would it not be a blessing to a child to have a righteous father?
You are still just grasping at warm fuzzy sound bites that don’t hold up under examination. Nothing forbade it, there would be nothing wrong if he did, and your personal discomfort comes from Victorian attitudes, not the scriptures.
Only that it was God's plan, and for the salvation of man.
'His life wasn’t about only doing what would give him a personal gain. Would it not be a blessing to a woman to have a righteous husband, would it not be a blessing to a child to have a righteous father?
If it was the will the God, it would have been done. As Jesus said to Peter,"Get behind me Satan."
You are still just grasping at warm fuzzy sound bites that don’t hold up under examination
You haven't been spending much time with the New Testament.
Nothing forbade it, there would be nothing wrong if he did, and your personal discomfort comes from Victorian attitudes, not the scriptures.
If it was the will of God it would have been done. Obviously, you know nothing of God but only the delights of man.
>About 2/3 of the italicized words currently in the KJV were not even in the original KJV (italicized words indicate words not in the manuscript but added by the translator for clarity and grammar).
KJV is a fair to middling translation, with more than the usual amount of variations, mostly due to the original text, the textus recepticus, but it is funny that that is the text that the Mormon church still uses.
But that is not to say that it is tainted. Besides revelation from a Mormon prophet, where can we find the proof that it IS tainted? The dead sea scrolls show that the Early Greek texts of the Septugent are correct, and the early Greek texts
As for the OTHER English translations, the variations are still much less than the Book of Mormons over three thousand changes. But we will be quibbling over what constitutes a big change for the next thousand years.
Look at this series of ‘minor’ changes.
1 Nephi 11:18
1830:
“And he said unto me, Behold, the virgin which thou seest, is the mother of [. . . . ] God, after the manner of the flesh
1964:
“And he said unto me: Behold, the virgin whom thou seest is the mother of the Son of God, after the manner of the flesh.”
as well as 1 Nephi 11:21, 1 Nephi 11:32, 1 Nephi 13:40, all insert the phrase “Son of God”, taking the original and twisting the diety of Jesus out of it to fit later ‘revelations’ of the Prophet. If you do not see this as major I do not know what to say. It underlines the fact that the book was changed to fit the idea that Jesus was simply just another one of us.
Sounds like major differences to me, much like the Watchtower folks taking the Trinity and diety of Christ out of the New World Translation. Because of this, I fear that those that twisted the Word of God are going to have a hot time in the afterlife. J.S. at least twisted his own book.
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.