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
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.
Yes, smart-butt, ;) I know what a metaphor is. How do YOU know Christ was speaking metaphorically? How do you know what form the Church will take in eternity?
So Christ is married to a "metaphor?" STILL would not look pure, righteous, or good to be married to a woman. Just sayin'.
And you know what restornu, everything you say is crooked to the core as well, spin spin spin.
I hope you enjoy tit-for-tat slander.
Save your hot air for winter!
You are so vain and into your self!:)
You have a pleasant evening, resty.
The history to which you refer was enacted by the South Park kids as follows: (the "dumb, dumb, dumb, dumb" were sung like they were accompanying drum beats)
Gary Sr.: Well, you remember Martin Harris, the rich man who wrote down what Joseph Smith read out of the hat?
Stan: Yeah.
Gary Sr.: See, after he was done, he took some of the pages of what would become the Book of Mormon home. [Back to the 1800s, night, the large building]
Singers: Martin went home to his wife Dumb dumb dumb dumb dumb And showed her pages from the Book of Mormon Dumb dumb dumb dumb dumb
Harris: A-and so Joseph Smith put his head into a hat, a-and read to me what the golden plates said. I wrote it all down and we're gonna publish it into a book.
Mrs. Harris: Martin, how do you know he isn't just making stuff up and pretending he's translating off golden plates?
Singers: Lucy Harris smart smart smart Smart smart smart smart smart
Harris: Why would he make it up?
Singers: Martin Harris dumb dadumb-
Lucy: All right, here. I'm gonna hide these pages. [puts them in a drawer at the bottom end of an armoir] If Joseph Smith really is translating off of golden plates, then he'll be able to do it again. But if Joseph Smith is making it all up, then the new translations will be different from these.
Harris: Okay, fine. I bet he'll have no problem. [puts on his coat and heads out]
Singers: Lucy Harris smart smart smartMartin Harris dumb. So Martin went on back to Smith Said the pages had gone away Smith got mad and told Martin He needed to go pray Dumb dumb dumb dumb dumb
Harris: [upon Smith's return] Look, ah I'm sorry about losin' the pages we worked on, Joe, but I'm ready to write it all down again if you translate from the plates.
Smith: I would love to, Martin, except, I just had a vision. And the Lord said he's very angry with me for letting you take those pages.
Harris: [gasps] He is??
Singers: Dumb dumb dumb dumb dumb
Smith: Yes. He is so mad that he will never let me translate from the plate of Lehi again. He's... we must now translate from the plate of Nephi. So it will be the same basic story, but written a little differently.
Harris: Wow! If God got angry with you, then you must be tellin' the truth.
Singers: Dumb dumb dumb dumb dumb dumb dumb.
Harris: All right, Martin. Let's get to work! [Smith reads from the hat again and dictates to Harris, who writes it all down] [Back to the present, the Marsh house]
Gary Sr.: And that's how it happened.
Kids: Yeah! All right! [the Marshes sit there without a word to say] Stan: ...Wait. Mormons actually know this story and they still believe Joseph Smith was a prophet?
I am a little more incline to accept wiki on things of no human topic.
When it get to things on people especially on LDS there are these Johnny come lately sites that where its we say vs. they say.
The Lord commanded Joseph and the LDS to keep journals. LDS Journal is accessible, these new anti LDS hit sites can say anything was in a journal, and I would have no way to know for sure in this modern day advent.
You how MHG accuses JS of rewriting the Bible at Least for me I know Joseph was a prophet and a rest orator.
These other guys are Johnny come lately in the 20th century!
“You are so vain and into your self!:)”
Anyone who calls me a crook better be ready to put up some real facts. IF I were a real crook the way my Mormon ex-partner was, I would have had to threaten to beat you up, tried to steal $300,000 from your mother, withheld the books of a business and never showed a profit, and cheated the IRS.
What I think instead is that you are mad at me for showing how Mormons Always defend their own, no matter how crooked your brethren might be. It started with Joseph Smith, but I have now more than enough material on Harry Reid to show he is being protected much the same way. So if you want to call me a crook, I will call you something worse, an enabler of crooks.
You have yet to provide a single quote of mine that you can show is a verifiable falsehood - put up or shut up. And I don’t even resort to seer stones or a burning in the bosom to prove my points.
“How do YOU know Christ was speaking metaphorically?”
Because marriage is a relationship between a man and a woman.
“How do you know what form the Church will take in eternity?”
His church is the group of people following him. Are you really suggesting that those who follow Christ will cease to exist as individuals and become combined into a single female persona? Is that the kind of afterlife you look forward to?
“So Christ is married to a “metaphor?””
No, the marriage relationship is a metaphor for the relationship Christ has with the Church. Saying it is a literal marriage that precludes marriage to any woman would require a radical alteration of the definition of marriage.
Brilliant episode but I found this to be the most telling part
>>Gary: Listen, I just wanted to let you know you don’t have to worry about me tryin’ to be your friend anymore.
Stan: I don’t?
Gary: Look, maybe us Mormons do believe in crazy stories that make absolutely no sense, and maybe Joseph Smith did make it all up, but I have a great life. and a great family, and I have the Book of Mormon to thank for that. The truth is, I don’t care if Joseph Smith made it all up, because what the church teaches now is loving your family, being nice and helping people. And even though people in this town might think that’s stupid, I still choose to believe in it. All I ever did was try to be your friend, Stan, but you’re so high and mighty you couldn’t look past my religion and just be my friend back. You’ve got a lot of growing up to do, buddy. Suck my balls. [turns around and walks off. All four boys just look at him in wonder, even Cartman.]
Cartman: Damn, that kid is cool, huh? <<
I have no idea what it is but you are so small minded to blanket every LDS in your vendetta!
An if you call or imply Reno232 who you don’t know only because they are are LDS those names I will see you as being a smooth operator.
In life I have learn it is best to move on or you will miss some real neat things and, because you allowed your self to be stuck back in the pass!
Maybe it is because you are from Nevada and reno232 reminds you?
At times I thought you were in you 30’s or early 40’s but you must be from an older school.
Gosh when you can’t do any things about a situation, let go and let God!
In the mean time be ready to receive other opportunities and blessings!
Humor making fun of, is one thing, but profanity just shows where that spite was conjured up from!
I don’t know anything about Reno232 one way or the other.
I’m just asking you to cut out the name calling and I’ll be happy to do the same.
Shouldn’t the title be “How much in child support was Jesus hit up for?”
Oh boy this one eye is driving me crazy I apologize I can’t fine that post so it was not you!
Shouldn’t the title be “How much in child support was Jesus hit up for?”
You got that problem bvw?:)
My problem is too many straight men feeding me set-up lines. Except as an observer of those in the straights of serial polygamy, I do not, thankfully, have aforesaid problem.
Well I don’t think Jesus had that problem so why ask a stupid question!
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.
It was a humorous quip. Can I ask you why you are not LOL’ing?
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.