Jesus Married to Mary Magdalene

[marc]

Incidentally, it is not recorded precisely what spices the women brought with them for Christ's body. There are accounts that Joseph of Aramathea and also Nicodemus provided what was needed. Furthermore, it isn't unreasonable to conclude that the myrrh and frankincense brought by the wise men, including the gold, when Christ was a boy, was saved by Mary for that future day when her Son would need them for His burial, especially the myrrh. Ample research and historical records, including some by Josephus supports various accounts and traditions if anyone wants to research it.

John 19:39 And there came also Nicodemus, which at the first came to Jesus by night, and brought a mixture of myrrh and aloes, about an hundred pound weight.

[Sarah]

I do not believe Jesus was married, especially to Mary Magdalene.

For one thing, people back then and there had arranged marraiges within their own families. Joseph and Mary were cousins, for instance. Where was the familial relationship between Mary Magdalene and Jesus of Nazareth?

And she was not the first person to witness the resurrection, either. The soldiers guarding the tomb were. She just happened to be at the tomb at the right time. And the idea here was that all she and all these women should immediately go and tell the Apostles what they saw.

And as I have said elsewhere, how could it be that a wife was preparing to embalm her own husband, and the day after he was crucified? Are you guys out of your minds?! Would your own wife have the presence of mind to want to begin embalming procedures on your own body after you had just died in your sleep? How about if you had been crucified? Would you really expect her to do that? Can't you see what a crazy idea this is?

And according the the scriptural record, she was bringing a great deal of very expensive spices to begin the process. I mean, we are talking an amount worth a real fortune that she had very quick personal access to. To say Jesus was her husband would have to imply Jesus was a very exceedingly wealthy man.

Jesus was not a fallen being. He was not subject to the fall. He "could" die, and he "could" suffer temptation, but he was not subject to either. The whole idea of the fall of man is that now we are all subjected beings, a state that only obedience to the laws and ordinances of the gospel, which are empowered by the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ, potentially allow us to overcome. Jesus did not need any ordinance to overcome a fall he was not subject to. The only reason He was baptized even was to set an example, I mean his whole mission was stated as "repent and be baptized", and NOT because He himself needed the ordinance. On this John the Baptist was correct. And neither did He need the laying on of hands for the Gift of the Holy Ghost.

I do not find it proper to drag Jesus Christ down to our fallen level in order to validate Celestial marriage, and we need to stop trying to force fit Him into our own limited understanding of the gospel or to circumscribe Him or subject Him to the laws we ourselves are required to obey.

As King of King and Lord of Lords, and head of the Priesthood, Jesus Christ has eminent right of domain, with all of us belonging to him, and not the other way around ( like Him belonging to Mary Magdalene!). He claims all the righteous as His seed. This is a much more expansive blessing than just being married to one wife, or even 50, isn't it?

Question still remains, will Jesus EVER marry? If not, why? And if the answer is that he will, why not during his mortal mission?

[marc]

Because

29 Jesus answered and said unto them, Ye do err, not knowing the scriptures, nor the power of God.

30 For in the resurrection they neither marry, nor are given in marriage, but are as the angels of God in heaven.

[Onsdag]

My replies in blue

I do not believe Jesus was married, especially to Mary Magdalene. [I believe He was, and there is pretty strong circumstantial evidence supporting this]

For one thing, people back then and there had arranged marraiges within their own families. Joseph and Mary were cousins, for instance. Where was the familial relationship between Mary Magdalene and Jesus of Nazareth? [Not necessarily, and not always. There are scriptural accounts of people marrying someone of their own choosing, rather than the parents arranging the marriage. Same goes for marrying within the family. Your argument is unfounded]

And she was not the first person to witness the resurrection, either. The soldiers guarding the tomb were [reference please. There may have been soldiers guarding the tomb, but they fled when the angels appeared and therefore could not have witnessed the resurrected Christ]. She just happened to be at the tomb at the right time. And the idea here was that all she and all these women should immediately go and tell the Apostles what they saw. [And why didn't Christ go and visit the Apostles first and personally, instead of sending the women to tell them? There is something significant in the fact that he visited and appeared to these women first.]

And as I have said elsewhere, how could it be that a wife was preparing to embalm her own husband, and the day after he was crucified? Are you guys out of your minds?! Would your own wife have the presence of mind to want to begin embalming procedures on your own body after you had just died in your sleep? How about if you had been crucified? Would you really expect her to do that? Can't you see what a crazy idea this is? [Nope - I don't think it's crazy at all. In fact, I have an uncle that just passed away this past week, and his funeral is tomorrow. His wife knew he was going to die five days before he actually did, and had all the funeral arrangements taken care at that time - days before he actually died. If my aunt was able to prepare for her husbands death days in advance, why is it so unbelievable that it can't happen elsewhere? Don't you think Christ, knowing of His death beforehand, wouldn't have informed others of the fact to prepare them for the event? In fact, yes. We know He at least tried to warn and prepare the Apostles, so why not His wife and other family members too?]

And according the the scriptural record, she was bringing a great deal of very expensive spices to begin the process. I mean, we are talking an amount worth a real fortune that she had very quick personal access to. To say Jesus was her husband would have to imply Jesus was a very exceedingly wealthy man. [To say that she couldn't is to deny the power and divinity of the Savior. Was He not able to tell the Apostles to catch a fish and pull a coin out of it's mouth to pay taxes (Matthew 17:27)? Did He not create all things - both in heaven and in earth? As Lord and creator of all things don't you think that He just might have the power and means to provide for His own? And who's to say that some wealthy benefactor might not step in and provide also, as was the case with the donated tomb?]

Jesus was not a fallen being. He was not subject to the fall. He "could" die, and he "could" suffer temptation, but he was not subject to either. The whole idea of the fall of man is that now we are all subjected beings, a state that only obedience to the laws and ordinances of the gospel, which are empowered by the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ, potentially allow us to overcome. Jesus did not need any ordinance to overcome a fall he was not subject to. The only reason He was baptized even was to set an example, I mean his whole mission was stated as "repent and be baptized", and NOT because He himself needed the ordinance. On this John the Baptist was correct. And neither did He need the laying on of hands for the Gift of the Holy Ghost. [And now we come to the real beauty of the love Jesus has for us fallen beings:]

14 And it came to pass that I saw the heavens open; and an angel came down and stood before me; and he said unto me: Nephi, what beholdest thou?
15 And I said unto him: A virgin, most beautiful and fair above all other virgins.
16 And he said unto me: Knowest thou the condescension of God?
17 And I said unto him: I know that he loveth his children; nevertheless, I do not know the meaning of all things.
18 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.
19 And it came to pass that I beheld that she was carried away in the Spirit; and after she had been carried away in the Spirit for the space of a time the angel spake unto me, saying: Look!
20 And I looked and beheld the virgin again, bearing a child in her arms.
21 And the angel said unto me: Behold the Lamb of God, yea, even the Son of the Eternal Father! Knowest thou the meaning of the tree which thy father saw?
22 And I answered him, saying: Yea, it is the love of God, which sheddeth itself abroad in the hearts of the children of men; wherefore, it is the most desirable above all things.
23 And he spake unto me, saying: Yea, and the most joyous to the soul.
24 And after he had said these words, he said unto me: Look! And I looked, and I beheld the Son of God going forth among the children of men; and I saw many fall down at his feet and worship him.
25 And it came to pass that I beheld that the rod of iron, which my father had seen, was the word of God, which led to the fountain of living waters, or to the tree of life; which waters are a representation of the love of God; and I also beheld that the tree of life was a representation of the love of God.
26 And the angel said unto me again: Look and behold the condescension of God!
27 And I looked and beheld the Redeemer of the world, of whom my father had spoken; and I also beheld the prophet who should prepare the way before him. And the Lamb of God went forth and was baptized of him; and after he was baptized, I beheld the heavens open, and the Holy Ghost come down out of heaven and abide upon him in the form of a dove.
28 And I beheld that he went forth ministering unto the people, in power and great glory; and the multitudes were gathered together to hear him; and I beheld that they cast him out from among them.
29 And I also beheld twelve others following him. And it came to pass that they were carried away in the Spirit from before my face, and I saw them not.
30 And it came to pass that the angel spake unto me again, saying: Look! And I looked, and I beheld the heavens open again, and I saw angels descending upon the children of men; and they did minister unto them.
31 And he spake unto me again, saying: Look! And I looked, and I beheld the Lamb of God going forth among the children of men. And I beheld multitudes of people who were sick, and who were afflicted with all manner of diseases, and with devils and unclean spirits; and the angel spake and showed all these things unto me. And they were healed by the power of the Lamb of God; and the devils and the unclean spirits were cast out.
32 And it came to pass that the angel spake unto me again, saying: Look! And I looked and beheld the Lamb of God, that he was taken by the people; yea, the Son of the everlasting God was judged of the world; and I saw and bear record.
33 And I, Nephi, saw that he was lifted up upon the cross and slain for the sins of the world.

[And:]

10 And behold, he shall be born of Mary, at Jerusalem which is the land of our forefathers, she being a virgin, a precious and chosen vessel, who shall be overshadowed and conceive by the power of the Holy Ghost, and bring forth a son, yea, even the Son of God.
11 And he shall go forth, suffering pains and afflictions and temptations of every kind; and this that the word might be fulfilled which saith he will take upon him the pains and the sicknesses of his people.
12 And he will take upon him death, that he may loose the bands of death which bind his people; and he will take upon him their infirmities, that his bowels may be filled with mercy, according to the flesh, that he may know according to the flesh how to succor his people according to their infirmities.
13 Now the Spirit knoweth all things; nevertheless the Son of God suffereth according to the flesh that he might take upon him the sins of his people, that he might blot out their transgressions according to the power of his deliverance; and now behold, this is the testimony which is in me.

I do not find it proper to drag Jesus Christ down to our fallen level in order to validate Celestial marriage, and we need to stop trying to force fit Him into our own limited understanding of the gospel or to circumscribe Him or subject Him to the laws we ourselves are required to obey.

[CONDESCENSION, n. Voluntary descent from rank, dignity or just claims; relinquishment of strict right; submission to inferiors in granting requests or performing acts which strict justice does not require. Hence, courtesy.

Jesus Christ condescended - that is, being a God He voluntarily and willingly, of His own free will and volition, took upon Himself the form of man and descended below all things in order to perform the great act of the Atonement - and thus showed His love for God, and for man. That, as the scriptures testify, by "suffering pains and afflictions and temptations of every kind; and... he will take upon him death, that he may loose the bands of death which bind his people; and he will take upon him their infirmities, that his bowels may be filled with mercy, according to the flesh, that he may know according to the flesh how to succor his people according to their infirmities." No, indeed, it is not any of us who "drag Jesus Christ down to our fallen level in order to validate Celestial marriage," rather, it is Christ who lovingly condescended to our fallen level in order to show us the way and to prepare the way for our Celestial exaltation. Praise be to God who is the author and finisher of our faith!]

As King of King and Lord of Lords, and head of the Priesthood, Jesus Christ has eminent right of domain, with all of us belonging to him, and not the other way around ( like Him belonging to Mary Magdalene!). He claims all the righteous as His seed. This is a much more expansive blessing than just being married to one wife, or even 50, isn't it?

Just a thought - a king cannot be a king without a queen by his side. How much more then the King of Kings?! And, as King of King, and Lord of Lords, with eminent domain - as you pointed out - who are you, or I, or anyone else for that matter, to tell Jesus Christ that He can or can't take a wife? Or two? Or even 50?

[Older/wiser?]

Thanks Onsdag for above post, I have many talks tucked away from the early day brethren on this subject. If you want a good read Dynasty of the Holy Grail Mormonism's sacred bloodline, by Vern Swanson. It expands on the why this is important. Joseph of Arimathea who assumed responsibility for the burial was weathlty and was a ship merchant , and the family tradition of carpenter, in some of this book and others states the family business was that of an architect. Traditions that Mary Magdalene and His mother traveled , as also the Lord, paint an interesting and more detailed picture. Above book can be read on Google books.

[Silver Pie]

By the way, this is not a movie, but a documentary on a real fragment of papyrus. Part of the words are, "Jesus said, my wife ...."

I found this on Netflix a few minutes ago (I was looking for a good movie on Jesus, his death and resurrection): "The Gospel of Jesus's Wife" (to be correct, at least in my day, it should be written Jesus' but the extra s was in the title). It looks interesting. I am going to watch it. I thought it fit the subject of this thread quite nicely.

Here is a bit about the fragment, less than 2 1/2 minutes long - a snippet to introduce you to it (if you've never heard of it before; I hadn't before last night).

[Silver Pie]

I do not believe Jesus was married, especially to Mary Magdalene.

Question still remains, will Jesus EVER marry? If not, why? And if the answer is that he will, why not during his mortal mission?

Besides the fact that he had to be married to be taken seriously as a teacher (and none of the Jewish leaders threw up in his face the "fact" that he was single, and therefor unworthy to teach anyone), there is the fact that Jesus perfectly obeyed all of God's commandments. John didn't want to baptize him because He was holy and had no need of baptism. Jesus insisted on it anyway. It is a commandment to be married. Jesus obeyed all of the commandments. It is a very logical jump from one to the other.

As far as Mary putting oils and herbs on Jesus, passionflower, who else to do it but Jesus' loving wife and Jesus' loving mother? I do understand the grief part you speak of, yet people were tougher in those days than they are today. And in those days were much closer to birth and death than we are today in first world countries. Even in the 1920s and 1930s in this country (USA), people often took care of their own dead. And Mary, the mother of Jesus, could very well have saved the gifts from the magi. After all, they were given to her son, not to her. And, he could have saved them when she gave them to him. I don't think we know this, but I do think it is possible.

Also, someone mentioned that Jesus would have only had daughters (did I misread that?), but there are stories that he had sons, and that all of His children but one son were killed. Also, that Mary and her children moved to what is present-day France and/or England. It is in the research (at least in part) that the DaVinci Code novel is based on. I read the book that the researcher wrote. I don't recall the name of it, and it was very poorly written. The guy should have taken all of his research notes and had someone who was good at explaining things plainly and concisely write the book.

[Silver Pie]

Thanks Onsdag for above post, I have many talks tucked away from the early day brethren on this subject. If you want a good read Dynasty of the Holy Grail Mormonism's sacred bloodline, by Vern Swanson. It expands on the why this is important. Joseph of Arimathea who assumed responsibility for the burial was weathlty and was a ship merchant , and the family tradition of carpenter, in some of this book and others states the family business was that of an architect. Traditions that Mary Magdalene and His mother traveled , as also the Lord, paint an interesting and more detailed picture. Above book can be read on Google books.

I just did an online search for this. Thank you for giving the title. I would like to own this book (hardcopy), but that sucker is over $50!

I looked at the comments on one site the search turned up, and found the title of a book that could be the one I read (that I referred to in a post above): Holy Blood, Holy Grail

[Older/wiser?]

I read that years ago also. The one by Vern Grosvernor Swanson is very well documented read it on line then decide if it is worth it to you , cause $50. is $50 to much for something you don't really like.

[simpleton]

Let's reverse this thinking that for Jesus to be married it is lowering Himself to mankind's lowly carnalistic standards.. wrong wrong wrong, and that idea and concept comes from Catholicism... I look at it completely opposite, for Him to be married was progression and advancement and eternal. It is amazing to me how much false traditions still hold sway in Mormonism, or rather amongst Mormons, Jesus being married was common knowledge among the early latter day saints. I run across it here and there all through different old time biographies...
Where do we come from? Our Father in heaven is married, to our Mother in heaven and we were conceived by them in heaven... as we are taught that things on earth are a likeness of things in heaven...
Jesus set the perfect example in all things, including marriage ... If He was not married then what are we doing? If He was truly not married then I am renouncing Mormonism and joining the Catholic church and kicking out my wife and becoming a monk. @-) If He was not married then He did not fulfil the measure of His creation. I will not worship a celibate.
But each person has a God givin right to believe how they want. ;)

[simpleton]

Luke 10-38
Now it came to pass, as they went, that he entered into a certain village: and a certain woman named Martha received him into her house.
And she had a sister called Mary, which also sat at Jesus' feet, and heard his word.
But Martha was cumbered about much serving, and came to him, and said, Lord, dost thou not care that my sister hath left me to serve alone? bid her therefore that she help me.
And Jesus answered and said unto her, Martha, Martha, thou art careful and troubled about many things:
But one thing is needful: and Mary hath chosen that good part, which shall not be taken away from her.

How about this interesting little tidbit. Since when is it appropriate to go into a woman's house and then get into the middle of a little domestic squabble?
Unless? Hmmmmmm, could it be?
I await reaction. :ymhug:

[Silver Pie]

I read that years ago also. The one by Vern Grosvernor Swanson is very well documented read it on line then decide if it is worth it to you , cause $50. is $50 to much for something you don't really like.

I did try to find a Google version to read for free, but couldn't find it. Maybe I'll do a general online search for it.

[Silver Pie]

Luke 10-38
Now it came to pass, as they went, that he entered into a certain village: and a certain woman named Martha received him into her house.
And she had a sister called Mary, which also sat at Jesus' feet, and heard his word.
But Martha was cumbered about much serving, and came to him, and said, Lord, dost thou not care that my sister hath left me to serve alone? bid her therefore that she help me.
And Jesus answered and said unto her, Martha, Martha, thou art careful and troubled about many things:
But one thing is needful: and Mary hath chosen that good part, which shall not be taken away from her.

How about this interesting little tidbit. Since when is it appropriate to go into a woman's house and then get into the middle of a little domestic squabble?
Unless? Hmmmmmm, could it be?
I await reaction. :ymhug:

Now it came to pass, as they went, that he entered into a certain village: and a certain woman named Martha received him into her house.

But Martha was preoccupied with serving everyone. Seeing that Mary was being idle, just sitting at Jesus' feet, listening to him instead of helping her (Martha) in the kitchen, Martha came to him, and said, "Dear bil, dost thou not care that your wife hath left me to serve alone? Since you're her husband and, in this society, she should do what you tell her to do, bid her therefore that she help me."

And Jesus answered and said unto her, "Martha, Martha, thou art careful and troubled about many things:
But one thing is needful: and Mary hath chosen that good part, which shall not be taken away from her. And you should also chill out, and sit here and listen and learn, also, dear sil."

[Alaris]

Let's reverse this thinking that for Jesus to be married it is lowering Himself to mankind's lowly carnalistic standards.. wrong wrong wrong, and that idea and concept comes from Catholicism... I look at it completely opposite, for Him to be married was progression and advancement and eternal. It is amazing to me how much false traditions still hold sway in Mormonism, or rather amongst Mormons, Jesus being married was common knowledge among the early latter day saints. I run across it here and there all through different old time biographies...
Where do we come from? Our Father in heaven is married, to our Mother in heaven and we were conceived by them in heaven... as we are taught that things on earth are a likeness of things in heaven...
Jesus set the perfect example in all things, including marriage ... If He was not married then what are we doing? If He was truly not married then I am renouncing Mormonism and joining the Catholic church and kicking out my wife and becoming a monk. @-) If He was not married then He did not fulfil the measure of His creation. I will not worship a celibate.
But each person has a God givin right to believe how they want. ;)

Another aspect to this is how so many elevate Jesus above Heavenly Father by saying He was too holy for marriage and even elevate Jesus above themselves while considering the process of becoming a God the Father yourself somehow does not elevate you above God the Son. You have to become a Son before you can become a Father. When you do, to whom will you appear first?

D&C 93 12 And I, John, saw that he received not of the fulness at the first, but received grace for grace;
13 And he received not of the fulness at first, but continued from grace to grace, until he received a fulness;
14 And thus he was called the Son of God, because he received not of the fulness at the first.

20 For if you keep my commandments you shall receive of his fulness, and be glorified in me as I am in the Father; therefore, I say unto you, you shall receive grace for grace.

[Matchmaker]

How does the Apostle Paul fit into this equation? He was of the tribe of Benjamin and had a reputation for having been most devout. He also describes himself as single. Apparently, the Lord does not require that one marry in this life to be considered a righteous man or woman. If they don't marry, but still live a chaste life, they will be given another 1,000 years during the Millennium in which to find and commit to an eternal companion.

[simpleton]

How does the Apostle Paul fit into this equation? He was of the tribe of Benjamin and had a reputation for having been most devout. He also describes himself as single. Apparently, the Lord does not require that one marry in this life to be considered a righteous man or woman. If they don't marry, but still live a chaste life, they will be given another 1,000 years during the Millennium in which to find and commit to an eternal companion.

Yes, apostle Paul was very dedicated to Jesus Christ and to the salvation of his fellow man. He is what I call a real man, that had an eye single to the glory of God.
And he even talks a little about how if your love of a woman distracts you from God, then better to be single. But better to marry than to burn. (We won't discuss that.)
Look at society, it's all about me me me and getting that presumably " perfectly" built woman.

Whereas men's first love should be Christ and His Kingdom, and be dedicated thereto. And women should be dedicated to their husband and that cause.
Even the eunuch is mentioned in the scriptures as having excellent standing if he is dedicated to God:

Isaiah 56:
"For thus saith the LORD unto the eunuchs that keep my sabbaths, and choose the things that please me, and take hold of my covenant;
Even unto them will I give in mine house and within my walls a place and a name better than of sons and of daughters: I will give them an everlasting name, that shall not be cut off".

Matt. 6:
But seek ye first the kingdom of God, and his righteousness; and all these things shall be added unto you.
Added? IE; Wives, children, lands, possessions, worlds without end etc.
So was Jesus married?, absolutely no doubt in my mind. As, if anyone was dedicated to our Father and His kingdom it was Christ, and if He fulfilled the measure of His creation/kingdom it would include eternal life and eternal increase.
And if He set the " perfect " example it would also include the perfect example of being a husband and a father. At least in my book anyways.

[passionflower]

How does the Apostle Paul fit into this equation? He was of the tribe of Benjamin and had a reputation for having been most devout. He also describes himself as single. Apparently, the Lord does not require that one marry in this life to be considered a righteous man or woman. If they don't marry, but still live a chaste life, they will be given another 1,000 years during the Millennium in which to find and commit to an eternal companion.
[/quote

The apostle Paul certainly does not fit into this contrived equation, and though past 30, he was also very likely a rabbi ( rabbis after the order of Gamaliel often learned the art of tentmaking) Moroni does not fit into it either, when he bemoans the fact that he has no friends nor kinsman, yet does not mention a wife. And what about Lazarus for whom only sisters seem to mourn? And what about JS vision where he saw Alvin in the CK?

There is no place in the scriptural records where Jesus is declared to be married. Just because he associated with women offers no proof of a marital relationship. Imagine the confusion if we conducted our temple work in this sloppy fashion, sealing everyone together who were mentioned in the same story? Or accepted spurious documents? Doing so only creates confusion, like the supposed genealogy that declared Charlemagne of descendant of Jesus Christ . It is not as if every King that came along didn't had a similiar type of geneology made up for him. If he was Greek, he claimed to descend from a Greek God, an Egyptian Pharough claimed descent from an Egyptian God, the Chinese Emperor claimed Chinese Gods for his ancestors, and even the more modern day Emperor Hirohito of Japan claimed descendence from a Japanese God. Monarchs all over Europe, especially Great Britain, claimed to descend from David. These made up genealogies gave them the supposed "divine right to be King". If we want to give credence to that, we had better apologize to Great Britain for the Revolutionary war and submit ourselves to British monarchial rule, because after all, supposedly they sit on the throne of David!

We have to have some order here, don't you think, Matchmaker, and therefore to state someone was married requires a legal or other kind of evidence that holds up in a court of law. A scrap of paper from a supposed gospel of Thomas will not do, neither will circumstantial evidence, stuff Josephus said, etc etc. You have to have legal proof. Otherwise, it is just something that is "believed". I have wondered, since Jesus being married has NOTHING to do with anyone's personal salvation, why this is so very important to some people, and what good they think it does them? It reminds me of gospel hobbying, which can lead to apostasy.

We gain more light and truth by being obedient and receptive to what we already have, not by reading weird off the wall stuff like the Davinci Code.

What do you think, Matchmaker?

[Finrock]

How does the Apostle Paul fit into this equation? He was of the tribe of Benjamin and had a reputation for having been most devout. He also describes himself as single. Apparently, the Lord does not require that one marry in this life to be considered a righteous man or woman. If they don't marry, but still live a chaste life, they will be given another 1,000 years during the Millennium in which to find and commit to an eternal companion.
[/quote

The apostle Paul certainly does not fit into this contrived equation, and though past 30, he was also very likely a rabbi ( rabbis after the order of Gamaliel often learned the art of tentmaking) Moroni does not fit into it either, when he bemoans the fact that he has no friends nor kinsman, yet does not mention a wife. And what about Lazarus for whom only sisters seem to mourn? And what about JS vision where he saw Alvin in the CK?

There is no place in the scriptural records where Jesus is declared to be married. Just because he associated with women offers no proof of a marital relationship. Imagine the confusion if we conducted our temple work in this sloppy fashion, sealing everyone together who were mentioned in the same story? Or accepted spurious documents? Doing so only creates confusion, like the supposed genealogy that declared Charlemagne of descendant of Jesus Christ . It is not as if every King that came along didn't had a similiar type of geneology made up for him. If he was Greek, he claimed to descend from a Greek God, an Egyptian Pharough claimed descent from an Egyptian God, the Chinese Emperor claimed Chinese Gods for his ancestors, and even the more modern day Emperor Hirohito of Japan claimed descendence from a Japanese God. Monarchs all over Europe, especially Great Britain, claimed to descend from David. These made up genealogies gave them the supposed "divine right to be King". If we want to give credence to that, we had better apologize to Great Britain for the Revolutionary war and submit ourselves to British monarchial rule, because after all, supposedly they sit on the throne of David!

We have to have some order here, don't you think, Matchmaker, and therefore to state someone was married requires a legal or other kind of evidence that holds up in a court of law. A scrap of paper from a supposed gospel of Thomas will not do, neither will circumstantial evidence, stuff Josephus said, etc etc. You have to have legal proof. Otherwise, it is just something that is "believed". I have wondered, since Jesus being married has NOTHING to do with anyone's personal salvation, why this is so very important to some people, and what good they think it does them? It reminds me of gospel hobbying, which can lead to apostasy.

We gain more light and truth by being obedient and receptive to what we already have, not by reading weird off the wall stuff like the Davinci Code.

What do you think, Matchmaker?

Certainly nobody can claim definitively that Jesus was married. I think most people acknowledge that it is speculation. However, on the other hand, it shouldn't be offensive to think that Jesus Christ was married and that he made love with his wife or even wives.

When I was first introduced to the idea that Jesus may have been married and may have had a wife and all that this idea implies, I was very surprised and did not initially believe that such a thing could be right. Now that I look back on why I didn't believe it, the main reason why is because I believed that sex was sinful. Or, I had an idea of sex being very carnal and that sex was somehow beneath something that a God would engage in. In short, my beliefs about sex and how sex was bad and not divine is what caused me to reject this notion initially.

As I've gotten older and as my understanding and feelings towards sex have changed, so has my initial reaction to Jesus being married changed. I no longer see sex as being bad or not divine and so I have no reason to be actively against the idea of Jesus being married. It isn't offensive to me, it doesn't take anything away from Jesus, it doesn't lessen His role, neither does it lessen His divinity.

Although there is nothing definitive the prove that Jesus married, it would not surprise me and in fact to me it makes sense that He would be. It fact the idea increases my appreciation for Jesus and it increases my faith in Him and it allows me to relate to Him better.

-Finrock

[passionflower]

Yeah, Finrock, that is all I am really saying here. Show me some real proof, and I will be convinced Jesus was married to whoever the proof says he was.

I do not have sexual objections to Jesus being married, though, I have historical and culture-of-the-day reasons for not believing Jesus could not have been married, that is at least very convincing to me, and of which both the Bible and BOM back up. This was a very different world back then in the middle east, and those differences need to be respected by any honest seeker after truth. There are some really good solid reasons why Jesus could not have been married before he died at the age of 33. These reasons open up the scriptures in many ways and help us understand things like why there were so many widows around, including Mary, why only the woman brought to Jesus was accused of adultery( not the man), how come the wife of Herod had changed husbands, and so many other things, etc etc including Jesus' own very mysterious statement on marraige. The truth of this shed great light on our understanding and grants so much in the way of intellectual that you just wouldn't believe. I just don't see how I can sacrifice all that to hold onto some emotionally hyped up idea that Jesus was married for no other reason than just because.

Unfortunately, there have been Institute teachers and other LDS writers who have used bogus and biased "research" ( if you could even call it that ) to claim the NT shows Jesus was married. I have seen it, and to look at it or listen just not only lowers your IQ, but goes to prove how gullible LDS people are. They believe stuff like this without questioning it for the same reason Utah is the scam capitol of the nation. No respectable scholar would ever except the way some of these authors and teachers have strung things together to convince you and I that Jesus was a married man.

Thanks Finrock for hearing me out.

I am not telling anybody else what to believe, just saying where I am coming from on it.

We should be on equal grounds when it comes to what we believe, right?

[Matchmaker]

No one of us has any definitive proof whether Jesus was married while living in this telestial world or not. As was said above, it doesn't matter to our salvation or exaltation and shouldn't become a source of contention. We'll all know the answer in due time, along with the answers to many of the other mysteries. Peace and love.

[Silver Pie]

How does the Apostle Paul fit into this equation? He was of the tribe of Benjamin and had a reputation for having been most devout. He also describes himself as single. Apparently, the Lord does not require that one marry in this life to be considered a righteous man or woman. If they don't marry, but still live a chaste life, they will be given another 1,000 years during the Millennium in which to find and commit to an eternal companion.

I thought Paul was a widower.

[Matchmaker]

How does the Apostle Paul fit into this equation? He was of the tribe of Benjamin and had a reputation for having been most devout. He also describes himself as single. Apparently, the Lord does not require that one marry in this life to be considered a righteous man or woman. If they don't marry, but still live a chaste life, they will be given another 1,000 years during the Millennium in which to find and commit to an eternal companion.

I thought Paul was a widower.

I was not aware there was any evidence of that.

[simpleton]

Likewise, apostle Orson Hyde remarked:

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.

All that I have to say in reply to that charge is this—they worship a Savior that is too pure and holy to fulfil the commands of his Father. I worship one that is just pure and holy enough "to fulfil all righteousness;" not only the righteous law of baptism, but the still more righteous and important law "to multiply and replenish the earth." Startle not at this! for even the Father himself honored that law by coming down to Mary, without a natural body, and begetting a son; and if Jesus begat children, he only "did that which he had seen his Father do"...

Jeremiah M Grant: JD 1

Pass on still farther in their history, and look at their course and conduct, if you will believe the writers that lived in that age. What does old Celsus say, who was a physician in the first century, whose medical works are esteemed very highly at the present time. His works on theology were burned with fire by the Catholics, they were so shocked at what they called their impiety Celsus was a heathen philosopher; and what does he say upon the subject of Christ and his Apostles, and their belief? He says, "The grand reason why the Gentiles and philosophers of his school persecuted Jesus Christ, was, because he had so many wives; there were Elizabeth, and Mary, and a host of others that followed him." After Jesus went from the stage of action, the Apostles followed the example of their master. For instance, John the beloved disciple, writes in his second Epistle, "Unto the elect lady and her children, whom I love in the truth," Again, he says, "Having many things to write unto you (or communicate), I would not, write with paper and ink: but I trust to come unto you; and speak face to face, that our joy may be

346

full." Again—"The children of thy elect sister greet thee." This ancient philosopher says they were both John's wives. Paul says, "Mine answer to them that do examine me is this:—.

Have we not power to lead about a sister, a wife, as well as other apostles, and as the brethren of the Lord, and Cephas." He, according to Celsus, had a numerous train of wives.

The grand reason of the burst of public sentiment in anathemas upon Christ and his disciples, causing his crucifixion, was evidently based upon polygamy, according to the testimony of the philosophers who rose in that age. A belief in the doctrine of a plurality of wives caused the persecution of Jesus and his followers. We might almost think they were "Mormons."

Another founding member of the Twelve and polygamist, Apostle Orson Pratt, taught the plural marriage of the Son of God. In his work entitled, The Seer, Pratt argued along the same lines as Hyde for the plural marriage of the Son on the basis of the resurrection appearance of the Son to one of his wives, Mary Magdalene. Pratt wrote,
Next let us inquire whether there are any intimations in the Scriptures concerning the wives of Jesus. . . . In order to become the Father of Spirits, or, as Isaiah says, ?The Everlasting Father,? it is necessary that He should have one or more wives by whom He could multiply His seed, not for any limited period of time, but forever and ever. . . . One thing is certain: that there were several holy women who 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 first 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 very natural for a husband in the resurrection to appear first to his own dear wives, and afterwards show himself to his other friends.[20]
Apostle Pratt also offered a unique argument for the marriage of the Son from the Psalms. He taught that Jesus must have been married in order to fulfill the Messianic Psalm 45: 8-10.[21] The Apostle wrote,
If all the acts of Jesus were written, we no doubt should learn that these beloved women were his wives. Indeed, the Psalmist David prophesies in particular concerning the Wives of the Son of God. . . . ?Kings? daughters were among thine honorable WIVES: upon thy right hand did stand the QUEEN in a vesture of gold of Ophir.?[22]
After an extensive argument in The Seer, Apostle Orson Pratt concluded that both the Father and the Son had multiple wives. He 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, and another being upon the earth by whom He begat the tabernacle of Jesus, as His Only Begotten in this world. 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 were to be married.

Summary of LDS Comments on the Marital and Parental Status of the Son of God
In sum, five high-ranking LDS authorities affirmed the plural marriage of the Son. The five include Orson Hyde, Orson Pratt, Jedediah M. Grant, Joseph F. Smith and Joseph Fielding Smith. Four of the five were apostles at the time of their remarks and two of the five ascended to the presidency of the Church. Jedediah M. Grant was not an apostle at the time of his remarks but was ordained as an apostle and appointed to the First Presidency soon afterward.

Three of the five authorities also affirmed that the Son sired children in the flesh while the other two were silent on the Son?s fatherhood. The three include Orson Hyde, Jedediah M. Grant and Joseph F. Smith. All but one of these five high-ranking LDS authorities publicly taught these doctrines in official contexts. Only Joseph Fielding Smith refrained from teaching these doctrines publicly, presumably to minimize the ridicule from non-Mormons. Additionally, there is no evidence that any LDS authority has ever officially repudiated or rejected the teachings of Hyde, Pratt, Grant, Joseph F. Smith, and Joseph Fielding Smith on the marital and parental status of the Son.

[simpleton]

Matthew 26: 12–13 elucidates that Mary of Bethany performed this portion of the Second Anointing for her own husband before His death:

For in that she hath poured this ointment on my body, she did it for my burial. Verily I say unto you, Wheresoever this gospel shall be preached in the whole world, there shall also this, that this woman hath done, be told for a memorial of her.

These scriptures do not describe merely an act of “hero worship”, but a demonstration of an intimate and sacred ordinance taking place between the Savior and His wife! This offers us a clear understanding as to why His love for this particular woman was so great.

[Elizabeth]

simpleton, How many wives do you have ?