Dynasitc Marriages-Doctrinal Question

[_the road to hana]

Charity, a question. Do you think that Jesus Christ ever in his mortal ministry preached to anyone that they should have more than one wife? And if so, why do you think it is lost from current scripture?

Wouldn't early Christians continue the practice if he had taught it, even clandestinely?

You want my personal opinion? Since you asked, please don't hit me with "show me where this is official doctrine." MY OPNION.

Yes, I think plural marriage was practiced during Jesus' mortal ministry. I believe He had plural wives Himself. But I think that after His death and resurrection, the true doctrine was rapidly lost, due to the problem's of communications bewteen the Apostles, and their early deaths. Paul's attitude influenced the Church away from marriage at all. Paul's teachings certainly were influiential in moving the Catholic church toward celibacy as a requirement for its pastors.

And since I believe Jesus was married and had offspring, and this knowledge was kept very well hidden, then it is possible for things to happen clandestinely when that is required for safety.

MY OPINION.

Here's what doesn't fit with your assertion.

The New Testament is replete with examples of Jesus Christ either complying with existing ritual or setting the example for others. Right in scripture, one can find that he

*was taken for circumcision at the appropriate time according to Jewish law

*was baptized by John the Baptist

*observed the Passover and established the new covenant ritual at the Last Supper

It's recorded that he preached in the synagogues and that he accompanied his parents to the temple. The New Testament scriptures seem to make a point of the ordinances either being complied with, by example, or established.

Therefore, it would make more sense in support of your argument if there were any example of Jesus Christ being married. But there isn't. When he is referred to as "the bridegroom" in New Testament scripture it's always in reference to "the Church" being his bride.

Most Christians would really have no difficulty with Christ being married (at least, to one wife only, anyway). The simple fact is that in that regard, the scriptures are conspicuously silent, and wouldn't need to be, since setting an example seems to be an important part of them.

Christ himself says in Matthew 19 that not all people should marry, so attributing that solely to Paul is flawed. As far as I understand, clerical celibacy arose several centuries later primarily in response to estate complications, and not for theological reasons.

[_the road to hana]

How does one's mind leap from CLEAVE UNTO HIS WIFE to cleave unto his wive's.

Because each marriage/sealing is betwen the man and his wife.

Again, Charity, you're not being logical. Wouldn't it make more sense that the early Christians would have practiced polygamy had they been taught that, or seen that example in their spiritual leader?

[_Brackite]

Hello all Here,

Hi Charity,

Charity Wrote:

And although it is not official doctrine I believe that Jesus lived in a plural marriage. People who know the cultural practices of the day say that His relationship with Mary and Martha could not be explained except as that of husband and wives.

And, Charity also Wrote:

You want my personal opinion? Since you asked, please don't hit me with "show me where this is official doctrine." MY OPNION.

Yes, I think plural marriage was practiced during Jesus' mortal ministry. I believe He had plural wives Himself. But I think that after His death and resurrection, the true doctrine was rapidly lost, due to the problem's of communications bewteen the Apostles, and their early deaths. Paul's attitude influenced the Church away from marriage at all. Paul's teachings certainly were influiential in moving the Catholic church toward celibacy as a requirement for its pastors.

And since I believe Jesus was married and had offspring, and this knowledge was kept very well hidden, then it is possible for things to happen clandestinely when that is required for safety.

MY OPINION.

Sorry Charity, I strongly believe that your Opinion here Charity, is very And totally Wrong. The Following is Part of a Review from the Book Titled, 'THE DA VINCI CODE,' from Ron Rhodes:

THE TRUTH OF THE MATTER:

There is no mention of Jesus being married prior to the beginning of His three-year ministry. There is no mention of Jesus being married during His three-year ministry. There is no mention of Jesus being married at the crucifixion. There is no mention of Jesus being married at His burial. There is no mention of Jesus being married at His resurrection. In other words, there is no mention of a wife anywhere!

Aside from this deafening silence regarding a wife are theological arguments against Jesus having been married. For example, in 1 Corinthians 9:5 the apostle Paul defends his right to get married if he so chose to do so: "Don't we have the right to take a believing wife along with us, as do the other apostles and the Lord's brothers and Cephas?" Now, if Jesus had been married, surely the apostle Paul would have cited Jesus' marriage as the number-one precedent. The fact that he did not mention a wife of Jesus indicates that Jesus was not married.

Some try to argue that since it was expected of every Jewish man to get married, then surely Jesus must have followed custom and gotten married. Such an argument is unconvincing. First, note that a number of major prophets were never married - including the likes of Jeremiah and John the Baptist. Second, note that there were whole communities of Jews which included non-married men - such as the Essene community at Qumran. Third, note that Jewish leaders often granted exceptions to the general rule of marriage. It was certainly not an unbending requirement, and hence this general requirement does not constitute proof that Jesus must have been married.

Further, we must note that Jesus' marriage is yet future. He will one day marry the "bride of Christ," which is the church. Revelation 19:7-9 tells us:


Let us rejoice and be glad

and give him glory!

For the wedding of the Lamb has come,

and his bride has made herself ready.

Fine linen, bright and clean,

was given her to wear."

(Fine linen stands for the righteous acts of the saints.)

Then the angel said to me, "Write: 'Blessed are those who are invited to the wedding supper of the Lamb!'" And he added, "These are the true words of God."


Clearly, the evidence is against Jesus having gotten married in New Testament times.

Now, Brown's novel claims that a key evidence for Jesus getting married is found in the Gnostic Gospel of Philip. This document, Brown claims, indicates that Mary Magdalene was the companion of Jesus, and Brown says that in the Aramaic, "companion" means "spouse." Hence, Jesus must have been married. Further, Brown notes that this document indicates that Jesus often kissed Mary Magdalene on the mouth.

There are several points to make in response to this. First, the Gospel of Philip nowhere states that Jesus was married. Further, the document dates to about A.D. 275, several hundred years after the canonical gospels. Therefore, it can hardly be considered a reliable source for information about Jesus. Moreover, this gospel was written not in Aramaic, as Brown claims, but in Greek. Still further, the manuscript for the Gospel of Philip is not whole. In fact, the document says that "Jesus kissed her often on the ..." and then the manuscript is broken at that point. Brown and others have assumed the missing word must be "mouth," but it could just as easily be "head" or "cheek" or even "hand." There is nothing in the context that demands that Jesus kissed Mary on the mouth. Finally, the Gospel of Philip portrays the disciples of Jesus criticizing Mary because Jesus is said to love her more than all the disciples. However, one must assume that if Jesus was really married, no disciple would criticize Mary. The Gospel of Philip thus provides no hard proof that Jesus was married. Nor do any other "gospels" discovered from the second century and after add support to the claim.

( http://www.ronrhodes.org/DaVinci.html , Bold Emphasis Mine. )

[_truth dancer]

Okay, TD, you win.

Win what?

I'm not in a fight Charity.

You define the words anyway you want, change definitions in the middle of discussion, insult and denigrate adult faithful believers, tell wives they aren't really married and their children are bastards. Whatever makes you feel better.

I have no idea what my statements of a mating strategy have to do with how I feel. Hmmm...

For about the hundredth time, I DO NOT HAVE an issue with any form of partnering by consenting adults. People can engage in whatever behavior they wish. There is NOTHING denigrating about this statement.

The law does not recognize more than one wife. Nothing disrespectful about this, it is a fact of our society and the country at the time of Joseph Smith.

You can throw your mud at someone else.

No mud throwing Charity. No one is fighting you. It is your own world view that sets you up to believe this.

I won't engage you on this topic anymore.

I understand. Take care.

~dancer~

[_Yoda]

Okay, TD, you win. You define the words anyway you want, change definitions in the middle of discussion, insult and denigrate adult faithful believers, tell wives they aren't really married and their children are bastards. Whatever makes you feel better.

You can throw your mud at someone else. I won't engage you on this topic anymore.

Charity, I do hope that you will continue to engage me. I am interested in your take on my comments regarding the comparison between the scriptures in Jacob 2 and D&C 132.

Thanks.

[_harmony]

Sec 132 was canonized in 1852, If I recall correctly. Brigham sprung it on the Saints in a general conference after they were thousands of miles away from their families and essentially forced them to ratify it or be abandoned in the desert. Nice guy, our Brigham.

What a silly statement that is. The Saints KNEW why they were in the valley. They did not feel co-erced by Brigham Young. You should read their journals, harmony. You really demean their lives and their faith.

#1. This is the Celestial forum. You don't get to call anything anyone says "silly"... unless, of course, you're willing to accept the same from others here, and we all know you aren't willing to do that.

#2. The vast majority of the Saints did NOT know why they were in the valley. The only ones who knew were the ones who were in on the secret, the leaders. Let me quote the wiki:

The practice was not publicly announced until 1852, some five years after the Mormons arrived in Utah, and eight years after Smith's death. The doctrine authorizing polygamy was published in Doctrine and Covenants in 1876, although the revelation itself is dated 1843.

source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plural_marriage

As I said, polygamy was announced in general conference in 1852, FIVE years AFTER they arrived in the wilderness. Brigham was such a coward, he had one of his counselors (Pratt?) make the announcement.

I demean nothing, charity. The early Saints show their true colors all too clearly. They were gullible, trusting, hardworking dreamers who followed a wolf over a thousand miles, and then were given an ultimatum: follow or die. Their choices were not large. So the women shouldered the burden and the men shouldered the sin and the shame. None of them had the balls to stand up for what was right, and they lived without blessings until Pres Woodruff caved in the face of superior force.

Thank GOD for the government!

That conflict creates a dichotomy that is impossible to ignore, if one accepts the Book of Mormon a the word of God. The only remaining explanation is that Sec 132 is not a valid revelation, because God is not a god of confusion and conflicting revelations is confusion, squared.

There is no dichotomy. God is not a god of confusion, but people can sure get confused. Your confusion starts with your absolute denial of plural marriage. Then you have to twist and turn yourself into a pretzel to maintain that denial in the fact of revelation from God.

I am not confused, charity. I see Joseph clearly. You, on the other hand, see through a glass darkly.

The Abomination is condemned in the Book of Mormon. There is no getting around that. If you believe the Book of Mormon is the word of God, you cannot accept Sec 132 as revelation. It's that simple.

[_charity]

Here's what doesn't fit with your assertion.

The New Testament is replete with examples of Jesus Christ either complying with existing ritual or setting the example for others. Right in scripture, one can find that he

*was taken for circumcision at the appropriate time according to Jewish law

*was baptized by John the Baptist

*observed the Passover and established the new covenant ritual at the Last Supper

It's recorded that he preached in the synagogues and that he accompanied his parents to the temple. The New Testament scriptures seem to make a point of the ordinances either being complied with, by example, or established.

1.And since He taught in the synagogues, He was most likely married. It would have been extremely rare for an adult male, referred to as rabbi, not to be married.

2. And what do you think was happening at the wedding in Cana? Why are guests (if Mary and Jesus were only guests) so concerned about the wine? The host, the groom and his mother, for example, would have been very concerned about the wine. Jesus was the host, at His own wedding. And so, of course, He should see that there was enough wine.

3. There was plenty of reason to keep Jesus'spouse and offspring in secret. After all the Jews had wanted Him dead, and the Romans didn't want anyone to stir up trouble. The way to get rid of a threat was to erdicate all of that line. They had to keep Jesus' family protected.

.4. And you forget that in Utah, when the Saints were free from government interference, only a small percentage of families were plural. Most were not. Why would the early Saints have not followed that pattern?

Therefore, it would make more sense in support of your argument if there were any example of Jesus Christ being married. But there isn't. When he is referred to as "the bridegroom" in New Testament scripture it's always in reference to "the Church" being his bride.

The only reason an analogy has any power fo help us visualize is if there is a real world example of it.

Most Christians would really have no difficulty with Christ being married (at least, to one wife only, anyway). The simple fact is that in that regard, the scriptures are conspicuously silent, and wouldn't need to be, since setting an example seems to be an important part of them.

I don't know that statement is correct. I think there are a lot of Christians who have shown that they object to the idea of Jesus being married. The DaVinci Code really got people all riled up at the idea.

Christ himself says in Matthew 19 that not all people should marry, so attributing that solely to Paul is flawed. As far as I understand, clerical celibacy arose several centuries later primarily in response to estate complications, and not for theological reasons.

Try telling that to your Catholic buddies.

[_harmony]

.4. And you forget that in Utah, when the Saints were free from government interference, only a small percentage of families were plural. Most were not. Why would the early Saints have not followed that pattern?

Small percentage? Please verify this allegation.

[_charity]

Charity, I do hope that you will continue to engage me. I am interested in your take on my comments regarding the comparison between the scriptures in Jacob 2 and D&C 132.

Thanks.

As I have studied these two passages of scripture I see them complementing each other.

What I learn from both is that:
unrighteous sexual relations cause great heartache and are an abomination.
it is not the marital style, but the unrighteousness that is the problem.
God from time to time for His own purposes commands plural marriage (Jacob 2:30)
Whatever God commands, those who live His law are blessed.

[_charity]

.4. And you forget that in Utah, when the Saints were free from government interference, only a small percentage of families were plural. Most were not. Why would the early Saints have not followed that pattern?

Small percentage? Please verify this allegation.

The folks at Signature Books estimate 20-30%. And I think you would probably agree that they aren't going to estimate low. Others say it was more like 2-3%.