DiscussMormonism.com

In my opinion, one of the seemingly most important roles we mortals have in the Plan of Salvation is to be Parents and Spouses.
Husbands, Wives, Partners, Fathers, Mothers.

So how come we are given absolutley no example of how Christ treated His wife and children? Come to that, How come we are given absolutely no glimpse into how God treats Mrs God?

Did they both fail at being husbands and are embarrassed to relate their experiences?

Did they not get married at all, in which case it seems a bit much that they tell us how to do something they themselves haven't done. A bit like having a bachelor marriage guidance counsellor giving advice on matters he hasn't got any idea about except what he read in a book written by a bachelorette..

There are some interesting theories on this. Some historians have mused that since he was addressed as "Rabbi", and you had to be a rabbi to be married, that it was an assumed that he was married. And, since all rabbis were married, it was just not a big deal to mention when discussing his mission.

If you read the Gnostic books, there is quite a bit of narration involving Jesus being married to Mary Magdeline. Some have even been under the impression that Mary Magdeline and Mary of Bethany were the same person. Therefore, it would make sense that Mary of Bethany was so taken with Jesus' stories, and Jesus approvingly praised her for forgetting the clean-up work that her sister, Martha, chided her about.

It is documented that Mary Magdeline was the first to see him come from the tomb. She speaks to, who she believes is the garndener, of someone taking her Lord. Then, when she hears his voice, she looks up and knows he is Jesus. Could this not be Jesus, her husband?

There is a lot of reasons why the 12 would not believe Mary. Women were not well thought of during that time. I think they were jealous of the fact that Jesus included Mary as part of his ministry, and the 12, Peter, in particular, felt that women should have no part in it.

Can you tell I'm a hopeless romantic? LOL

liz3564 wrote:There are some interesting theories on this. Some historians have mused that since he was addressed as "Rabbi", and you had to be a rabbi to be married, that it was an assumed that he was married. And, since all rabbis were married, it was just not a big deal to mention when discussing his mission.

If you read the Gnostic books, there is quite a bit of narration involving Jesus being married to Mary Magdeline. Some have even been under the impression that Mary Magdeline and Mary of Bethany were the same person. Therefore, it would make sense that Mary of Bethany was so taken with Jesus' stories, and Jesus approvingly praised her for forgetting the clean-up work that her sister, Martha, chided her about.

It is documented that Mary Magdeline was the first to see him come from the tomb. She speaks to, who she believes is the garndener, of someone taking her Lord. Then, when she hears his voice, she looks up and knows he is Jesus. Could this not be Jesus, her husband?

There is a lot of reasons why the 12 would not believe Mary. Women were not well thought of during that time. I think they were jealous of the fact that Jesus included Mary as part of his ministry, and the 12, Peter, in particular, felt that women should have no part in it.

Can you tell I'm a hopeless romantic? LOL

You're certainly hopeless!

I guess my point is less about if Jesus got married or not. It's that He is not recorded as giving lessons in Parenthood or Marital relationships (from a position of people being able to see how He did it) when it is clearly portrayed as the most important aspect of the Plan of Salvation.

In the Journal of Discourses, one of the apostles stated that Jesus was a polygamist. And that some of his descendants are Mormons.

The Mormon plan of salvation definitely includes producing offspring. In Catholicism, our reason for being here on earth is to know, love, and serve God.

Jesus was too busy with doing what He was sent to do to spend time taking care of wife and children. Therefore, He had neither. And that is the ideal for those who are called to do so.

As an example, married men in the Nauvoo days were sent to be missionaries. And we all know what happened as a result of that. That is the reason why today Mormons use forced celibate single young men out to be missionaries, and empty nest couples. Mormons reject the Catholic celibate priesthood because they call it forced celibacy.

Celibate priests are equipped to work with married people because the focus is on the relationship, not the sex. And they learn a lot about relationships. And they learn about sexual self-restraint, in terms of being faithful to their vows. The Pre-Cana program for engaged couples is led by married couples.

Love does not have to be expressed sexually.

Thank you for the question.

Interesting contrast, Liz, except for the fact that Mary was a very common woman's name.

MCB wrote: ...
Celibate priests are equipped to work with married people because the focus is on the relationship, not the sex. And they learn a lot about relationships. And they learn about sexual self-restraint, in terms of being faithful to their vows. The Pre-Cana program for engaged couples is led by married couples.

Love does not have to be expressed sexually.
...

Yes, I know those arguments, but ... if Roman Catholic priests had continued to have the right to marry (as they effectively used to before the 11th century, and as Eastern Orthodox priests have always done), would anyone say that a move to compulsory celibacy would be likely to improve their ability to counsel married couples on their relationships.

I think not.

MCB wrote:In the Journal of Discourses, one of the apostles stated that Jesus was a polygamist. And that some of his descendants are Mormons.

The Mormon plan of salvation definitely includes producing offspring. In Catholicism, our reason for being here on earth is to know, love, and serve God.

Jesus was too busy with doing what He was sent to do to spend time taking care of wife and children. Therefore, He had neither. And that is the ideal for those who are called to do so.

As an example, married men in the Nauvoo days were sent to be missionaries. And we all know what happened as a result of that. That is the reason why today Mormons use forced celibate single young men out to be missionaries, and empty nest couples. Mormons reject the Catholic celibate priesthood because they call it forced celibacy.

Celibate priests are equipped to work with married people because the focus is on the relationship, not the sex. And they learn a lot about relationships. And they learn about sexual self-restraint, in terms of being faithful to their vows. The Pre-Cana program for engaged couples is led by married couples.

Love does not have to be expressed sexually.

Thank you for the question.

Interesting contrast, Liz, except for the fact that Mary was a very common woman's name.

Thanks for the post, an interesting angle on the subject.

I like the way you have contrasted the forced celibacy of Catholic Priests with the claimed Non forced celibacy of the Mormon Missionaries.

However, my point still stands.
If two people came along to teach you how to play football (real football from the colonies which I think the US refers to as Soccer).
One was David Beckham and the other was Michael Moore, which one would be the best person to teach you?
I think the one who had the demonstrably expertise from having been there, seen it, done it, would be far better placed than one who had only sat on the sidelines and shouted.

I find it interesting that Paul, the champion of sexual asceticism, only holds himself up as the ultimate example and NOT Jesus Christ. After all, he would have known if Jesus were married or not. The fact he does not do so speaks volumes and his silence is deafening on this topic.

Drifting wrote:

liz3564 wrote:There are some interesting theories on this. Some historians have mused that since he was addressed as "Rabbi", and you had to be a rabbi to be married, that it was an assumed that he was married. And, since all rabbis were married, it was just not a big deal to mention when discussing his mission.

If you read the Gnostic books, there is quite a bit of narration involving Jesus being married to Mary Magdeline. Some have even been under the impression that Mary Magdeline and Mary of Bethany were the same person. Therefore, it would make sense that Mary of Bethany was so taken with Jesus' stories, and Jesus approvingly praised her for forgetting the clean-up work that her sister, Martha, chided her about.

It is documented that Mary Magdeline was the first to see him come from the tomb. She speaks to, who she believes is the garndener, of someone taking her Lord. Then, when she hears his voice, she looks up and knows he is Jesus. Could this not be Jesus, her husband?

There is a lot of reasons why the 12 would not believe Mary. Women were not well thought of during that time. I think they were jealous of the fact that Jesus included Mary as part of his ministry, and the 12, Peter, in particular, felt that women should have no part in it.

Can you tell I'm a hopeless romantic? LOL

You're certainly hopeless!

I guess my point is less about if Jesus got married or not. It's that He is not recorded as giving lessons in Parenthood or Marital relationships (from a position of people being able to see how He did it) when it is clearly portrayed as the most important aspect of the Plan of Salvation.

Again, I think that the reason there is not more documented in the New Testament regarding Jesus' marriage, or his children, is because it was simply something that the scribes of that day did not find important.

As MCB pointed out, Christ did often state that husbands should treat their wives the way He treats His Church. He was completely devoted to his ministry.

Now, the Gnostic Bible suggests that Mary was an actiive part of that ministry, which infuriated Peter, particular. It could even be that Peter and other later scribes purposely edited out the portions of the involvement of women in the Church.

It is also speculated that the water Jesus turned to wine was the story of his own wedding.

The reason he may not have had documentation involving children could be that Mary was pregnant when Jesus hung on the cross, and that was their first child.

Yes, I'm hopeless! LOL

Yes, I know those arguments, but ... if Roman Catholic priests had continued to have the right to marry (as they effectively used to before the 11th century, and as Eastern Orthodox priests have always done), would anyone say that a move to compulsory celibacy would be likely to improve their ability to counsel married couples on their relationships.

There are exceptions to a celibate priesthood. If a married high church priest converts to Catholicism, and feels the calling, he can become a priest. executive order, Lutheran and Episcopalian/Anglican. Obviously, with the pay he would get, his wife would have to have a profitable career.

MCB wrote:

Yes, I know those arguments, but ... if Roman Catholic priests had continued to have the right to marry (as they effectively used to before the 11th century, and as Eastern Orthodox priests have always done), would anyone say that a move to compulsory celibacy would be likely to improve their ability to counsel married couples on their relationships.

There are exceptions to a celibate priesthood. If a married high church priest converts to Catholicism, and feels the calling, he can become a priest. executive order, Lutheran and Episcopalian/Anglican. Obviously, with the pay he would get, his wife would have to have a profitable career.

Indeed. All this goes to the point that clerical celibacy in the Roman Catholic church is primarily a disciplinary matter, not a theological necessity. There is nothing about having a wife and a sex life that of and in itself disables you from the priesthood - except that you would be in a state of disobedience, unless you fell into one of the categories you mention.

Again, I can't really see what good it does that counterbalances the obvious harm done by celibacy under modern circumstances - except that it keeps priests relatively cheap.