Was Jesus Married?

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).

"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.

“If it was the will the God, it would have been done.”

Agreed. And we can’t say with any certainty either way on it. The issue just isn’t addressed.

“You haven’t been spending much time with the New Testament.”

Actually that’s what we’ve been reading and studying all this year in Sunday School.

“Obviously, you know nothing of God but only the delights of man.”

Hate to break it to you, but God gave us sex, we are designed for it, and commanded to it within the bounds of marriage. This was done BEFORE the fall so don’t pass it off as some dirty thing God holds his nose and tolerates out of practical necessity, it was part of his intention from the beginning.

Abusing it is immoral and deeply offensive to God, but for a husband and wife to love each other and to be with each other is pleasing to God, and enjoying doing what is pleasing to God is not wrong.

If you have a problem with any of that, take it up with God.

“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.”

I already explained very clearly that we refer to Christ as God, and we also refer to Heavenly Father as God. The term ‘God’ on it’s own is not as precise as the term ‘Son of God’ which can only refer to Christ. Both versions of those verses are doctrinally equivalent to us, but the latter one is less prone to be misunderstood. The change is only a clarification of the original intent and not a doctrinal change in any way.

“If you do not see this as major I do not know what to say.”

If you think the change represents a doctrinal change you do not understand LDS theology.

“It underlines the fact that the book was changed to fit the idea that Jesus was simply just another one of us.”

Wow, you really don’t understand LDS theology. Christ was not merely ‘another one of us’, he was the divine Son of God, the only Begotten of the Father after the manner of the flesh, the Jehovah of the Old Testament, the great I AM, the only one to live a sinless life, the only Savior we have or need.

"Hate to break it to you, but God gave us sex, we are designed for it"

You keep confusing your mormon agenda with the bible. You've never answered the question. To who's glory would it benefit if Jesus was married. Don't change the subject please keep focused.

Agreed. And we can’t say with any certainty either way on it. The issue just isn’t addressed.

The issue is addressed. Jesus died on the cross.

Never said sex was dirty. You are projecting. We are talking about the mission of God's son Jesus, not men.

Abusing it is immoral and deeply offensive to God, but for a husband and wife to love each other and to be with each other is pleasing to God, and enjoying doing what is pleasing to God is not wrong.

Where does this have to do with God's plan for Jesus?

If you have a problem with any of that, take it up with God.

But down the book of mormon and read the bible.

Isaiah 55

7 Let the wicked forsake his way and the evil man his thoughts. Let him turn to the LORD, and he will have mercy on him, and to our God, for he will freely pardon.

8 "For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways," declares the LORD.

“To who’s glory would it benefit if Jesus was married.”

Being a righteous husband and father glorifies God and furthers his plan for mankind every time it is done.

“The issue is addressed. Jesus died on the cross.”

Dying on the cross and having a family are not mutually exclusive. There is no reason in scripture to think that having a family would prevent him from atoning for our sins, that is an idea men invented.

Nor is there any cause to claim it would be contrary to God’s will. Christ was obligated to keep the same commandments as the rest of the Jews. He did not need a remission of sins, yet he was baptized in order to be obedient, there was no exemption for him even though he was God. It isn’t a big stretch at all to suggest the command to multiply and replenish the earth was also a command he was obligated to obey.

“But down the book of mormon and read the bible. Isaiah 55...”

I read the Bible quite a bit, what you quote settles absolutely nothing in this matter or any other specific issue. I can just as easily toss it back saying it applies to your opinion.

Being a righteous husband and father glorifies God and furthers his plan for mankind every time it is done.

And what plan did God have for his son?

You're reading out of the mormon book again. Go back and read the New Testiment. This time, try not to "ponder" but read the word of God.

. It isn’t a big stretch at all to suggest the command to multiply and replenish the earth was also a command he was obligated to obey.

It's obvious you don't read the bible so I'll stop and let you catch up. Try putting away the mormon book and focus on God's word, ( which is in the bible) not the ramblings of a polygamist.

You love to sneer and smear ideas you don’t like, but you have yet to present any valid rational from the scriptures for your views.

“You’re reading out of the mormon book again.”

Nope, the Book of Mormon doesn’t say anything about Christ having a family (or not) either. It is the Bible that commands us to multiply and replenish the earth, if you want to argue that Christ had an exemption from that (or that doing that, plus being the Savior would just be too much for the guy), show me in the scriptures where it says so.

I don’t know if he did or didn’t, I don’t really care since it makes no difference to the fact that he is my Savior.

“focus on God’s word, ( which is in the bible) not the ramblings of a polygamist.”

You mean like Abraham, or Jacob? God so favored Jacob that he blessed him that all children from all his wives were made God’s chosen people.

You love to sneer and smear ideas you don’t like, but you have yet to present any valid rational from the scriptures for your views.

You are spinning again, please focus. Go back and answer the question I asked.

What was God's plan for his son?

If you have trouble with that question, please read the New Testament. Mark, Luke, John, etc...

“You are spinning again”

Asking you to back up your claim is spinning? Yeah, right.

“What was God’s plan for his son?”

I already addressed this point, just because someone is sent to do some specific task, whether it is to atone for our sins or to lead Israel out of Egypt or whatever doesn’t mean that is the ONLY thing they are supposed to do.

If you want to get picky about it, part of God’s plan for his Son was to have his Son set the example for us, to lead a perfect and righteous life. He obeyed the Law of Moses, he obeyed the command to be baptized even though he had no sins he needed remission for. If you are going to assert that he was somehow exempt from the command to multiply and replenish the earth, that avoiding marriage somehow sets a good example for the rest of us, then the burden is on YOU to make your case.

So go for it, present your evidence, have the guts to lay out your reasoning and proof for your claim. Tell us what God’s plan was for Christ from the age of 12 to 30. Do you think he just sat around waiting or what?

If all you are going to do is ask vague questions in the hope of finding something in my reply to find fault with, then you are no better than the hypocrites Christ so soundly condemned.

It is the Bible that commands us to multiply and replenish the earth, if you want to argue that Christ had an exemption from that (or that doing that, plus being the Savior would just be too much for the guy), show me in the scriptures where it says so.

Some men are exempted from such an expectation ... and are led, by God, to live unmarried lives. So states Jesus Himself ...
Matthew 19:10 His disciples said to him, "If this is how it is between a man and his wife, it is better not to marry."

11 Jesus answered, "This teaching does not apply to everyone, but only to those to whom God has given it.

12 For there are different reasons why men cannot marry: some, because they were born that way; others, because men made them that way; and others do not marry for the sake of the Kingdom of heaven. Let him who can accept this teaching do so."

In all the writings of the scriptures ... there is no mention of Christ possibly being married ... or of any theoretical children.

Other members of His family are ofter mentioned ... His mother, His (step)-father, His brothers, His sisters, etc. ... but never any mention of any wife or children ... from Matthew to Revelation.

Circumstantial though the case may be ... the scriptures support the conclusion that Christ was not married.

“Some men are exempted from such an expectation ... and are led, by God, to live unmarried lives. So states Jesus Himself”

I would disagree with interpreting those verses as endorsing the practice. Just prior to that he re-iterates the command to marry given in the Garden of Eden. His disciples said it would be easier for a man to just not marry, and Christ his teachings would be hard for some to take. He recognizes that some are born eunuchs, and that some make themselves eunuchs for religious reasons, but I don’t see his remarks as endorsing celibacy (or self mutilation).

“In all the writings of the scriptures ... there is no mention of Christ possibly being married ... or of any theoretical children...Circumstantial though the case may be ... the scriptures support the conclusion that Christ was not married.”

No, that is a logical fallacy. Absence of proof means nothing, especially where it is very common for wives and children to go unmentioned or unnamed in scripture when they don’t play a role in some event.

The scriptures are not conclusive on the subject either way, and both sides can find things that imply the possibility of their view being correct. Who is right is unknown and will be unknown for some time. In the end, does it really matter as long as we accept Christ as our Savior and do our best to follow him?

Some men are exempted from such an expectation ... and are led, by God, to live unmarried lives. So states Jesus Himself ...

I would disagree with interpreting those verses as endorsing the practice. Just prior to that he re-iterates the command to marry given in the Garden of Eden. His disciples said it would be easier for a man to just not marry, and Christ his teachings would be hard for some to take. He recognizes that some are born eunuchs, and that some make themselves eunuchs for religious reasons, but I don’t see his remarks as endorsing celibacy (or self mutilation).
Matthew 19:12 For there are different reasons why men cannot marry: some, because they were born that way; others, because men made them that way; and others do not marry for the sake of the Kingdom of heaven. Let him who can accept this teaching do so."
It is here that Jesus exhorts those that are called (by God) to the single life ... to accept that teaching (calling).

Circumstantial though the case may be ... the scriptures support the conclusion that Christ was not married.

No, that is a logical fallacy. Absence of proof means nothing, especially where it is very common for wives and children to go unmentioned or unnamed in scripture when they don’t play a role in some event.

The scriptures are not conclusive on the subject either way, and both sides can find things that imply the possibility of their view being correct. Who is right is unknown and will be unknown for some time. In the end, does it really matter as long as we accept Christ as our Savior and do our best to follow him?

The life that Christ lived, as described in the New Testament, was that of a single man. Nothing that we see about Christ's life in the scriptures ... is incongruent wih His being single.

One must extrapolate beyond what is testified to in the scriptures ... to even suppose that Jesus was married.

I don't think that we ought to do that.

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.