Posted on 09/12/2014 6:28:11 PM PDT by matthewrobertolson
According to Latter-Day Saints (LDS, Mormon) President Orson Hyde, Jesus was married to several women, including Mary Magdalene, and had biological children.
"..[In John 2,] Jesus was the bridegroom at the marriage of Cana of Galilee, and he told them what to do. Now there was actually a marriage; and if Jesus was not the bridegroom on that occasion, please tell who was. ... We say it was Jesus Christ who was married, to be brought into the relation whereby he could see his seed, before he was crucified. ... I do not despise to be called a son of Abraham, if he had a dozen wives; or to be called a brother, a son, a child of the Savior, if he had Mary, and Martha, and several others, as wives; and though he did cast seven devils out of one of them, it is all the same to me. ... I shall say here, that before the Savior died, he looked upon his own natural children, as we look upon ours; he saw his seed, and immediately afterwards he was cut off from the earth; but who shall declare his generation?"
-- Hyde, at the Mormon General Conference, on 6 October 1854. (Printed in Journal of Discourses, Vol. 2, p. 82.)
Apparently, this position had support from Brigham Young, Wilford Woodruff, Orson Pratt, and others.
The LDS organization has since denied these claims. A spokesman said, "The belief that Christ was married has never been official Church doctrine. It is neither sanctioned nor taught by the Church. While it is true that a few Church leaders in the mid-1800s expressed their opinions on the matter, it was not then, and is not now, Church doctrine."
Still, Hyde's is an allowed position within Mormonism. That is concerning.
Of course, Christ is the figurative Bridegroom -- but He is not so literally, in a carnal sense! Also, for the record, the "seed" of His mentioned in Isaiah 53:10 refers to our spiritual relationship with Him, in the sense of John 12:24 and Galatians 3:26.
—
Follow me, Answering Protestants, and Catholic Analysis on Twitter, Like Answering Protestants and Catholic Analysis on Facebook, Add Answering Protestants and Catholic Analysis to your Circles on Google+, and Subscribe to me or Catholic Analysis on YouTube.
—
If Mormonism, were honest, it would not be Mormonism. But such are a test for us as to what we will choose.
But I fear, lest by any means, as the serpent beguiled Eve through his subtilty, so your minds should be corrupted from the simplicity that is in Christ. For if he that cometh preacheth another Jesus, whom we have not preached, or if ye receive another spirit, which ye have not received, or another gospel, which ye have not accepted, ye might well bear with him. (2 Corinthians 11:3-4)
Mormons are in the Bible:
For such are false apostles, deceitful workers, transforming themselves into the apostles of Christ. And no marvel; for Satan himself is transformed into an angel of light. Therefore it is no great thing if his ministers also be transformed as the ministers of righteousness; whose end shall be according to their works. (2 Corinthians 11:13-15)
But may we have single eyes for Jesus and overcome evil, with Good.
Very interesting and I'd not considered that. Isn't the bridegroom/bride analogy simply figurative just as the slavery or prisoner analogy often made in the NT? [...]
Is it? Are they? But that is not my point:
As it is now, ANY passage relating to the betrothal and marriage of Messiah IS the Bride. Introduce a carnal bride, and those passages suddenly have a competitor - How might that competitor be used to take away the promises, intention, and attitude of Yeshua toward His Bride? Note that I am not saying that it necessarily DOES, but that it allows *some* to introduce that competition.
It corrupts the image - Why I am an avid iconoclast is because they (images not ordained by YHWH) corrupt or supplant the images that YHWH set up in the first place. The image of His Bride is that of His one and ONLY... A love that extends beyond time, and even beyond death! A love that is all consuming in His mind. The single and uncorrupted, perfect, SHE. We ALL know what that feels like. We ALL have wished for that one true love. That true love is all there is, all that can be. No other woman can fill that space.
I don't think YHWH would do anything to corrupt or lessen that image. More than any other way, it expresses his yearning for relationship with us, and I don't think that can be understated in the least way. It is portrayed in the absolute, in the strongest sense that Man can understand. How many songs are written of that true love? Of that love unrequited? Of that love found! The heart-wrenching desperation, the heart-ache of yearning, the total obsession, the unbounded joy! Man understands this thing very, very deep in his soul.
[roamer_1:] Secondly, all things being equal, a married man will no doubt produce offspring - This is a can of worms that comes right out of the DaVinci Code - what a mess if there is a bloodline heir! But we need not worry about all that, because the Bible says He was cut off - That is a particular thing, meaning no blood heir - His line is ended.
[...] as an aside I find the DaVinci Code despicable garbage. Its purpose is to undermine Christ and to insult the Catholic Church.
Agreed, though I would extend that to all of the Church, and it points directly to the idea of 'corrupting the image of the Bride'.
Potentially [...] I'm not aware of the verse you refer to indicating that Jesus' line is cut off.
Dan 9:26 springs to mind, but it is thematically sound, primarily, I would suppose, in Psalms... It would take a bit of study to find every reference to Messiah being cut off.
Take a look at Isaiah 53:10 where it states emphatically that "[Jesus]shall see his seed" is that to be figurative or literal?
BOTH:
Isa 53:9 And he made his grave with the wicked, and with the rich in his death; because he had done no violence, neither was any deceit in his mouth.
Isa 53:10 Yet it pleased the LORD to bruise him; he hath put him to grief: when thou shalt make his soul an offering for sin, he shall see his seed, he shall prolong his days, and the pleasure of the LORD shall prosper in his hand.
Isa 53:11 He shall see of the travail of his soul, and shall be satisfied: by his knowledge shall my righteous servant justify many; for he shall bear their iniquities.
Isa 53:12 Therefore will I divide him a portion with the great, and he shall divide the spoil with the strong; because he hath poured out his soul unto death: and he was numbered with the transgressors; and he bare the sin of many, and made intercession for the transgressors.
Notice that He sees His seed and prolongs His days, AFTER His soul is offered up. The children are from His Bride, and we are banking upon that, you and I.
[roamer_1:] But that too suggests He was *not* married, as his brother would be obliged to take His wife and continue His heirs. Some form of the kinsman-redeemer would be enacted upon His bloodline and that bloodline would have continued in all likelihood.
On this point I am not clear as to what you are getting at.
I am suggesting that, barring a barren mate, his bloodline would be in evidence, to which there is no proof, other than the absurd tale of the offspring of Mary Magdalene, and the hideous continuation of that Merovingian line into the kings of Europe. And that certainly cannot be true.
[roamer_1:] And lastly, as a matter of form, it is an argument from silence - A position that I am usually loathe to take. [...]
Here I agree with you that an argument from silence isn't a strong argument. At the same time there would be a lot of reasons for God to hide the bloodline of Jesus Christ.
What reason, pray tell? What mystery? He does nothing but that he tells His prophets.
My point is that His being married or even being a father doesn't change one bit his divinity or his mission.
Technically true - But it can be used to muddle the message, and it is upon us to get that message out, as clearly as we can.
Interesting discussion and thanks.
Likewise - Thank you for your well reasoned reply.
I was just rambling about a rainbow I saw the other day, LOL. I was driving home and there was the biggest one I ever say, hanging directly in the middle of the sky. I just said out loud, “Come soon, Jesus.”
I want a seat at that tea party. :) So many good things to look forward to...
Holiness is being set apart such as setting aside the Sabbath:
All that is FINE for children. But to do that to ADULTS?
Are you telling me that you go up to strangers and start lecturing them about God?
I would, without doubt, say GOD BLESS YOU because my personal faith and relationship with God is none of your business.
BTW: why would they settle for mere niceness, when redemption in Jesus is so much better
Comparing "niceness" to "redemption in Jesus" is like comparing work boots and potato chips--MAKES NO SENSE. They are not comparable...but I get your drift. And that what it is...DRIFT.
I WOULD say "God bless you. And seek professional help." Americans don't do that. No, wait, NO ONE who has all his marbles does that.
I think you have greatly misunderstood me. You portray a person walking up to strangers and lecturing them about God. And if someone wants to do that, God bless them. It’s a free country. But I never said that about myself. Of course here on FR I will talk to people I’ve never met before, just as you are talking to me, even offering me free medical advice. :) But in my personal life I am more into what is called friendship evangelism. I try to make real friends with someone before talking to them about something as intimate as their eternal soul. I really am not sure why you would have thought otherwise, except that perhaps you have had some bad experiences with this sort of thing and are projecting them on to me.
But if you will bear one mire thought, I have to ask you something. Do you believe in evangelism? It has been part of Christian behavior and practice ever since Christ told us to go into all the world and make disciples. So my real question is, how can someone be a Christian and not believe in evangelism? I would understand your position if you were a Unitarian and didn’t believe nonbelievers were lost, that everyone is going to make their own way. And if that’s what you want to believe, that’s fine. Believe what you like.
But as a Christian, don’t we have to believe what Jesus says about everybody needing Him? I’m really interested in your answer. But if you don’t want to, that’s fine too. No harm no foul. But you do have my curiosity going.
Peace,
SR
Cat whether we met in this temporal world or not ....we have an eternity to get to know each other.....Jesus comes soon we want Your glory AND we want Chtist centered friends to join nana’s T party
Indeed, but holiness is also practical, not only righteousness. It may be that holiness is more that of being pure, distant from sin, due to being righteousness in abstaining from and overcoming it.
The question is asked due to,
He that is unjust, let him be unjust still: and he which is filthy, let him be filthy still: and he that is righteous, let him be righteous still: and he that is holy [hagios], let him be holy [hagiazō] still. (Rev 22:11)
and you are an admitted protestant........pot/kettle???
sure you did....think about it
Huh?
Are YOU claiming that Protestantism is a HERESY?
No I didn't; you are mistaken.
AMEN.
I'm sorry but I don't see that in scripture or the commentaries. Holiness means "set apart". Thus you have the holy temple, holy ground that Moses walked on, the holy of holies, the holy scriptures, and a holy nation to name but a few. These items are set apart by God and only God can declared something holy. Even God is a holy God-set apart from us. It isn't a distance. It is a separation. And whenever holy is used in scripture it means a separation from something else.
Righteousness is sanctification which God leads all believers for His glory and honor:
I hope you did not misunderstand me, for i was speaking of growth, of becoming practically holy what we are positionally. That while the believer is holy in Christ, he is yet to become more set apart, distant and distinct from sin or sinners:
Positional: Elect according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, through sanctification [hagiasmos] of the Spirit, unto obedience and sprinkling of the blood of Jesus Christ: Grace unto you, and peace, be multiplied. (1Pe 1:2)
Practical: I speak after the manner of men because of the infirmity of your flesh: for as ye have yielded your members servants to uncleanness and to iniquity unto iniquity; even so now yield your members servants to righteousness unto holiness [hagiasmos]. (Rom 6:19)
Follow peace with all men, and holiness [hagiasmos], without which no man shall see the Lord: (Heb 12:14)
For God hath not called us unto uncleanness, but unto holiness [hagiasmos]. (1Th 4:7)
There is difference also between a wife and a virgin. The unmarried woman careth for the things of the Lord, that she may be holy [hagios] both in body and in spirit: but she that is married careth for the things of the world, how she may please her husband. (1Co 7:34)
Have a God night.
I guess I did misunderstand. Yes I would agree. We are holy and we are to act holy. But how do we act holy? God is leading us to be righteous. I want to be a righteous man. But what exactly is a righteous man?
This shouldn’t be construed that I’ve fallen off the grace only wagon into the salvation by works. Rather, I think it revolves around a deeper relationship with God.
Certainly intriguing questions.
“And the two will become one flesh”.... If Jesus had been married, his whole being would be tainted by the sinful nature of his wife. “ There is none righteous, no, not one, for all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God.” According to this verse, even Jesus’ mother Mary was as much a sinner as us all,
My Catholic friends will say I’m blaspeming. Whatever... It seems all Christian denominations have quirks in which they think their way is the only way... or maybe I should say they are on the correct path to God and others are just mislead. Catholics seem to be exceptionally anal sometimes in these matters, (I honestly did not mean that as a pun, (in reference to a more serious problem in some Christian denominations.) I consider the Mormons as a “Romantic alternative” to Christianity. What with the lost tribes coming to the new world, starting or helping the ancient Mayan and Aztecs build pyramids with knowledge they received in Egypt. The golden plates the “angel” Maroni hid in the hill of Cummara? (Sp?) Joseph Smith burying his head in his hat as he mumbled prophetic utterances as “inspired” by the stones that were placed in the hat. Stones he claimed were the original “umman” and “thumman” again...sp? mentioned in the bible. How he was able to find them is anyone’s guess. The different “levels” of heaven. The fact they can pro - create in heaven when my Bible says “In heaven they neither marry, nor are given in marriage, but are as the angels”. It’s God’s duty to search people’s hearts, and not for me to determine who will, or who will not be allowed into heaven. I have to figure out for myself what IS the truth about God and what this life is all about. “Work out you OWN salvation with fear and trembling”. I know I’m all over the place here. But this thread has been one of the most informative and enlightening ones for me in a long time. One day after working hard on some underwater warfare testing in which a couple of us almost died. One, a Mormon buddy of mine who had the shakes bad, who obviously did not drink, but on this occasion I persuaded him to have a beer to help calm him down. I was amazed he actually drank it.... then another.. After three he started telling me things I know he probably should not be talking about. Although I felt a bit guilty, I couldn’t pass up this rare glimpse into his faith, so asked questions. He talked about how Jesus WAS Satan’s “twin” brother, that they were co- created by God. That Jesus was one of the Guardian cherubs of God. That he was NOT part of the Godhead (trinity). That God himself had a wife in heaven that he continually had sex with. Yes, you heard me right (Sorry Lord, I don’t mean to be crude, just trying to explain in a “toned?” down way what was said) and I won’t even get into the significance of the magical symbols embroidered on young women’s underwear. I was kind of interested in learning more about their religion before hearing this far out stuff. If they can’t be right up front and tell people the truth in ALL circumstances about their faith, then they are hiding something, and to me that is the same as lying. And Satan is the father of lies. Some of what he said was down right spooky. I’m amazed they are able to suppress some of these things. And he was an elder not just a casual church goer, working his way up to some “third?” level. I know many Mormon people. They are kind, but distant. They live clean and healthy lifestyles. They definitely have a superiority complex as do some Christian denominations. Sorry for the windy post...it’s been a while. Thanks to Everyone who posted on this thread. I really did learn a lot and stand open to any criticism, advice, or down right a** ripping us FReepers so often want to do to each other. People say FR has changed...maybe a little for the worse but more for the better. I remember back in 96? When the Monica Lewinsky thing broke and Willy was in deep doo, there was some of the same engaging, and often volatile back and forth then,4 that we see today on FR. That’s what makes this site the greatest.
Interestingly, hagiazō is only translated as "holy" here in the KJV: elsewhere out of 29 total KJV Occurrences, it is,
sanctified, 16
Joh_10:36, Joh_17:19, Act_20:32, Act_26:18, Rom_15:16, 1Co_1:2, 1Co_6:11, 1Co_7:14 (2), 1Ti_4:5, 2Ti_2:21, Heb_2:11, Heb_10:10, Heb_10:14, Heb_10:29, Jud_1:1
sanctify, 6
Joh_17:17, Joh_17:19, Eph_5:26, 1Th_5:23, Heb_13:12, 1Pe_3:15
sanctifieth, 4
Mat_23:17, Mat_23:19, Heb_2:11, Heb_9:13
hallowed, 2
Mat_6:9, Luk_11:2
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.