Reader comments
Evangelical preaches at Salt Lake Tabernacle

While I applaud the spirit of loving ecumenism displayed by Mouw and Zacharias, their naivete (like that of most democrats and would-be liberals--and I am one of them too) is truly embarrassing and sad. I the fourth paragraph above, Ravi professes shock that the DaVinci Code attacks the purity of Jesus by suggesting that he "had sex" with Mary Magdalene. Surely he is aware that in the Mormon version of things Jesus had no less than THREE wives: Mary and Martha AND Mary Magdalene. If you want to display a loving spirit toward all men in the name of Jesus, that's fine, but surely we "theologians" dare not depart from any interest in the facts... Is Fuller---my own alma mater---still interested in THEOLOGY? WE need to love the Mormons, but surely not at the cost of abandoning even the minimum elements of objectivity. Who do we believe Jesus is, or was? Does it matter at all for this "Christian philosopher"?

I have been a member of the lds church, and associated with it for 45 of my 53 years, and have never read, or heard that Jesus had three wives. I would like Marshall R Motz to name his sources please.

As a member of the LDS Church, I have not heard anything of that nature taught either. Perhaps there's some quote way back in the history of the church suggesting something like that, but it's surely not part of the official church canon, and certainly doesn't reflect the real focus on Jesus Christ in every sermon or lesson I've had, ie, that He is the Son of God, The Savior of the World, and that it is only through His atonement that anyone can be saved. It's a shame that such a post would be made concerning an article about members of the two communities coming together for a night of understanding, during which one pastor apologized for the misrepresentations of LDS doctrine that had occurred.

Ha ha, Marshall, I may not have been a member of the church for 45 years like livia above me (I'm 24) but regardless of what you may have heard or read in some book written by A mormon, the belief that Jesus had wives is not an official doctrine taught in the LDS church. Granted, historical and biblical evidence may hint to such possibilities as Jesus being married, and granted the belief in LDS doctrine that to ascend to the highest realm of the celestial kingdom a man must be sealed to a woman and so the ASSUMPTION is made by many members, current (such as myself) and early-day saints (Such as Orson Pratt) that Jesus was probably married; but that is NOT official LDS doctrine. There IS a difference. You really should cite your source as Livia said. And if it wasn't PUBLISHED by the body of the First Presidency, it isn't official LDS doctrine.

I am thankful to Mr Motz for his information about the LDS beliefs about the three wives that Jesus had. I am 76 years old and have been a member of the church all my life and this is the first time that I have heard this one. I get my information about what the LDS churh teaches from the LDS apostles and prophets I am sure Mr. Motz gets his information elsewhere.

Why is the Deseret News publishing this article again as if it were new? This meeting took place some 3 or 4 years ago. In light of the recent rhetoric that's taken place, this sure seems an odd time to re-hash this particular meeting.

Marsahll, you're out to lunch. I tell ya, it's like the anti-mormons have their own LDS literature, their own LDS beliefs, their own LDS scriptures, all of which have nothing to do with the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints. I think that one day, probably Brigham Young sneezed and it sounded like he said something about Jesus and his wives and somewhere, an anti-mormon wrote that in his list of LDS beliefs.
The anties continue to go to the baker to get their cars fixed, the dentist to get their eyes examined, and the urologist to get their dental work done. I've been hearing this stuff for 30 years now, never at church, but always the same stuff coming out of the same mouths. They've learned nothing and continue to teach nothing. Silly waste of time.

I believe the comment Motz is referring to was written by Orson Pratt, in a doctrinal treatise called The Seer. The writings were Pratt's own doctrinal speculations, not official doctrinal statements of the Church (although he presents his ideas in an authoritative fashion). Maybe similar statements from other 19th century church leaders can be found elsewhere as well. But it is absurd to say that it is "the Mormon version of things." I have never heard such doctrines in Church meetings, not once in all my life. That was Pratt's version of things.

I have been active LDS for 60 years and I have never been taught that Jesus had any wives. Marshall Motz needs to come forward with his source of information so that we can all be informed.

I think this meeting at the Tabernacle could be a beginning of new understanding and the apology is very much in order. However, I don't think most of the so called Christians will go along with it.

In the sceme of things why even speculate that Christ had three, one, or no wives. His sole purpose was to come to earth to save mankind. That is all we as sons and daughters of God need to know to gain eternal life. If we needed to know the personal and human side of Christ it would have been in the scriptures. What we do not know here we will learn in the next life. Lets not demoralize our Savior and Redeemer.

As a lifetime LDS member of some 40 years, and having researched the doctrine extensively--Marshall Motz, there is no such doctrine as Jesus' 3 wives. It is simply considered logical to many LDS members, given that marriage is one of the conditions of becoming exalted in the Celestial Kingdom, that He too was married. Some have speculated many things, but there is NO official LDS doctrine whatsoever about who his wife was.

Marshall Motz, I join in the call for you to please name your source for this erroneous information. It's sadly inappropriate--and woefully contrary to the spirit in which this meeting was held--to launch an allegation that's patently false and then duck out without giving your audience the opportunity to discover your source's biases.

I would like to see more open-mindedness along the lines of Dr. Mouw among all of us. He is a true Christian, if ever there was one.

What a weird result of presidential politics that some agenda-driven anti-Mormon would look up a THREE YEAR OLD story like this and lie about the beliefs of the Mormon church in order to . . . (fill in the blank).

How pathetic.

It is a sad sad thought that, although so many TRUE Christians are finally coming around to see the truth, there are those still rooted in the evil of lies and half truths. I reach out to you Mr. Motz and ask you to embrace Jesus as your Savior and leave the evil religion upon which you, as so many others, have embraced. That is to say Anti-ism (Anti-Mormonism, Anti-semitism, Anti-Catholocism, Anti-Islamism). It is a terrible sin and just as addictive as pornography or drugs. It will slowly but surely blacken your heart and destroy your sole and if you are not careful you will end up like so many addicts...more willing to tear down other faiths than build faith in the Lord and Savior Jesus. I have seen it happen time and time again to good men who let themselves become ensnared in a web of lies and deceit. Repent, find an ecclesiastical leader who is not infected and ask for help, get on your knees and ask God to help you.

This is possibly one of the most positive and encouraging events I have heard of in a long time. I have become so dismayed and even angry at the continual drum beat as of late, between the Evangelical and LDS communities.

Bigotry comes in many forms, and far too much of it has been displayed lately,particularly from the likes of Mr. O'Donnell on MSNBC. I will say, the positive effect on myself is, that in having felt the pain and disgust after his outburst, has made me resolve to never slander another persons faith, whether it is Christian, Jewish, Muslim or Whatever.

Can we work on cleaning up a phrase? "True Christian." Either you is, or you ain't. Skip the word, "True," say, "Christian." How can you be a false Christian? You are either a Christian, or not. Look at it another way: "True Mormon." No, the person is either Mormon or not.

Language is to clarify matters, not to... obfuscate?

I keep looking for a response from Marshall Motz. What's interesting about these blogs, is that you can state something as fact and then run and hide. Where are you Marshall Motz??

I don't think these rebranding efforts to mainstream mormonisms'image will work in time to put Mitt in the big chair, but it's interesting to watch.

I think it would be great to have an annual meeting every year to comemmorate the lds and evangelicals friendship together.

I was feeling very pleased to read about the meeting until I read one of the comments noting it happened in 2004. I went back to the article and IT'S TRUE!!

I really would like to know why this article was published again 3 years later. And I also hope my comment is posted!

As some of our readers have noticed, this is an archive article from 2004. The only place this story can be found is in archives and on the most popular list. The story has not been reprinted. It has been searched for and read by many readers, putting it on the most popular list.