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
“BECAUSE...according to the Bible the Church is the BRIDE of Christ.”
Like Zell Miller said: It’s called a metaphor, you know what a metaphor is, right? Like when someone is said to be married to their work. We don’t take that as meaning they don’t have a spouse.
If you think it isn’t a metaphor, then you have to toss the definition of marriage as being between a man and a woman and come up with some definition that allows a man to be married to a group of people who believe in him.
That you are clueless regarding why God as a man would not be married to one or more women, thus becoming ‘one flesh’ with one or more ‘adamic nature’ humans (the wives) says a lot about your spiritual state as a Mormon rather than a Christian. Am I saying you are not a Christian? Of course not, but I am saying if you are a Christian you are far off from a close relationship with The Lord to edify/transform your mind since you would not instantly recognize why Jesus would not be joined to ‘other flesh’ during his sojourn as God with us.
“So when we hear the Apostle Orson Hyde teach in the Journal of Discourses, the Mormon can ignore it?”
If it is something outside of what is taught in our scriptures, yes, they can ignore it. They can also go to the Lord themselves and ask God if the thing was true and find out for themselves. Either way however, it is not the doctrine of the church. The doctrine is defined by what is in our scriptures.
The JoD is not a church publication, so it is not an official writing of the church or a product of their official calling and it is not a source for doctrine. The speeches in there are the opinions of the speakers, and the way the transcripts were made left lots of room for mistakes to be made in the record.
Since you posted this thread, is there some obscure reason why you are not dealing with these Mormonism fallacies (like the insult of why wouldn’t Jesus be married to one or more women while he was on earth) as they arise in offense to the Gospel of Jesus Christ?
Well, since you claim it is something we should be able to ‘instantly recognize’ you ought to be able to actually express why you think Christ could not have possibly been married instead of just casting stones at us for asking what would be wrong if he was.
Go ahead, I’m all ears.
‘The two shall become one flesh’ ... ‘Leaving Father and Mother and cleave unto each other’ ... ‘To mind the things of the flesh is to be carnally minded’ ... are you getting the picture yet, Grig? You Mormons may believe Jesus was not God with us and only became ‘exalted’ with His death and resurrection thus He would not have been any different from men while he walked among us before the cross, but a real Christian who has studied to show themselves approved is immediately offended by the foolishness of entertaining that Jesus would have been married and perhaps had children while God with us. There are a host of more scriptures (in the Bible, Grig, not the BM) which show why Jesus was not sexually minded and was not joined with ‘other flesh’, so why don’t you search the scriptures and understand the foundational principles of Christianity, as opposed to Mormonism?
You are more patient than I. Perhaps you would enjoy this one.
I suggest you re-think you position on marriage. Read Genesis 1 & 2. Adam and Eve were brought together as husband and wife by God BEFORE the fall. They lived as husband and wife in the Garden of Eden BEFORE the fall in a state of perfection. In other words, the institution of marriage PRECEDED the fall and is not a carnal relationship of fallen man as you claim. It is a holy and pure relationship given by God to His perfect creations—Adam and Eve.
“‘The two shall become one flesh’ ... ‘Leaving Father and Mother and cleave unto each other’ ... ‘To mind the things of the flesh is to be carnally minded’ ... are you getting the picture yet, Grig?”
Yes, I get the picture that you can’t tell the difference between the love that should exist between a husband and wife and carnal lust. There is nothing wrong or ungodly about the love God wants husbands and wives to have for each other, including their sexual desires for each other.
“You Mormons may believe Jesus was not God with us and only became ‘exalted’ with His death and resurrection thus He would not have been any different from men while he walked among us before the cross,”
We believe Christ is the God of Israel, Jehovah, the great I AM. He was still all that during his mortal life, but he was every bit as much a mortal human as we are except for his ability to control his death and take his life up again.
“but a real Christian who has studied to show themselves approved is immediately offended by the foolishness of entertaining that Jesus would have been married and perhaps had children while God with us.”
If the only reason for being offended is this confusion between godly love between spouses and carnal lust then all you are doing is showing that I am right, it is all rooted in an unhealthy attitude towards sexuality.
Sex is not some dirty little thing, the power to bring a new child into the world is the most sacred and god-like power we have been given. Satan wants us to abuse it, or reject it, or be ashamed of it. God wants us, even commanded us, to find a spouse and raise a family.
Thanks for your post. Clueless I might be about many things, but your mention of " ‘adamic nature’ humans (the wives)" gives me a clue about your thinking.
Apparently, you believe that Jesus Christ is one Person having two distinct natures, one Divine and one human. (Please correct me if I am wrong.) Hence it is often stated that Jesus is both fully God and fully man. I gather that this is something of a paradox for traditional Christians, who view the Divine and the human as completely different from each other. I am guessing that you consider sexuality as belonging wholly to the human nature, and incompatible with the God nature.
Am I right thus far?
What if Satan imitated God to the “prophets” and convinced them to sin in multiple marriages? I am leery of what you say. Jesus spoke in the Gospels about adultery, he was quite clear.
As soon as you introduce mormonism into a discussion
of Christ, you lose all credibility.
Of course God is truth, God is unchanging, and God is eternal.
However, God gives different commandments at different times, to fit the circumstances and limitations of mankind. Moses was not given the commandment to build the Ark, for instance.
What if Satan imitated God to the “prophets” and convinced them to sin in multiple marriages? I am leery of what you say. Jesus spoke in the Gospels about adultery, he was quite clear.
And God is quite clear about adultery in our latter-day scriptures: he strictly forbids it. But he does not forbid sexual relations within a lawful marriage; indeed, I would say he encourages it. In times and places where plural marriage is legal and commanded by God, sexual relations with more than one wife is not adultery.
As for Satan imitating God, that is always a danger to watch out for. Although we consider our leaders to be inspired men, we do not consider them to be infallible. They sometimes express their own opinions, which may be mistaken.
How then do you tell whether a man is inspired by God or not? We believe that you must study out the issue in your own mind, consulting the scriptures and your own experience, and then ask God. Ultimately, it is through the power of the Holy Spirit that you may know the truth of all things.
“Commanded” by God? rme
Certainly. The reason the LDS Church excommunicates polygamists is that God has commanded that plural marriage not be practiced. Presumably, he could command otherwise, although I do not expect him to do so.
Orson Pratt mentioned in the article, was brother to Parley P Pratt, Romney’s great great grandad. Parley and Orson were both Apostles. Parley was bowie knifed and shot by an irate husband for stealing his woman and kids to make her the 10th out of 12 wives. Eventually, Bishop Romney will be up to his ears explaining polygamy etc.
“I’m not Mormon, but I do know that if you took speculation from the ministers and laypeople”
Except Orson Pratt was an Apostle.
“After learning that Joseph Smith dictated the Book of Mormon from behind a blanket by translating golden plates inscribed in ‘reformed Egyptian’ with his face buried in a hat with a magic stone in it and occasionally using giant spectacles, I have no problem with it.”
Except the plates were hidden buried on the hillside when he did the translation, this confirms it even more.
“Note that we do not consider as prophecy everything the president says; he is a prophet only when acting as such.”
In other words, he can have a revelation that his revelation wasn’t a revelation. And he can have a revelation that a non-revelation is a revelation if it turns out to be true. It’s good work if you can get it.
If a person honestly has a question about Jesus Christ, they might begin by simple reading His Word. Nowhere is Scripture are such notions implied nor suggested, but their contrary is probably supported by multiple doctrines.
Such suggestions about Jesus Christ having wives and fathered biological offspring make about as much sense as an egotisical wife claiming her husband is having affairs when they are working and sleeping 24/7 trying to pay bills. If one simply read Scripture, one would be hard pressed to find enough time in the life of Jesus Christ to have had a wife and children, let alone abiding to the many responsibilities of an immediate family, not to mention missing the entire point of the Incarnation.
The entire affair, IMHO, is simply an obfuscation by those who lack the patience to read Scripture, or humility to learn from Him how to have a relationship with God through faith in Christ. They seek to encourage believers to disprove negatives, while they lack the patience to hear the Truth.
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.