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
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
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.
To all you members who have been decades in the Church. Have you ever read the
Doctrine and Covenants? D&C 1311 IN the celestial glory there are three heavens
or degrees;2 And in order to obtain the highest, a man must enter into
this order of the priesthood [meaning the new and everlasting covenant of
marriage];3 And if he does not, he cannot obtain it.4 He may
enter into the other, but that is the end of his kingdom; he cannot have an
increase.If Christ is to obtain the highest degree in the Celestial
kingdom he must be married. D&C 132 says that plural marriage is required also
until be backed down from that. In general conference, a member of the First
Presidency stated that Christ had 3 wives, Mary, Martha and Mary Magdalene. His
name was Heber C. Kimball. Brigham Young was on the stand and did not correct
him because he believed it also. Those who do not believe it are the leaders
today, so they do not teach it. But that does not make it untrue. We also do not
believe in concentration anymore even though we covenant we will live the law.
Rebranding? The LDS Church has continually corrected misconceptions of our
doctrine from the beginning of the Church. Rebranding is not being done to put
anybody in the White House, but is the result of constantly being told by
non-members with agendas what they think we should believe and do not understand
the process by which things become doctrine in the LDS Church.
Yet, when the converts began to file off, some to one party, and some to
another, it was seen that the seemingly good feelings of both the priests and
the converts were more pretended than real
Mr. Motz has manifested "in word and deed" and "by [his] fruits" that he
is not a Christian. Bigotry is never an acceptable approach to sharing the
gospel of Jesus Christ. It is one thing to disagree, but the spirit in which
one goes about it reveals "the inward things of the heart." I would
encourage you, Mr. Motz, to "search thine own heart, and KNOW IT WELL, for out
of it flow th issues of life."
Out of the abundance ... ? Is this really so important?
To the Messrs. Motz and "wow how we have changed":Quit using
hearsay. Please provide us your sources, ie. Name, publication, date, page, etc.
Additionally, I think you meant "consecration", not "concentration". We are
concentrating, you are not. Awaiting your reply.
To Marshall Mortz: To try and explain to you something precious as the mormon
doctrine is like what the scripture says, do not cast your pearls to the swine,
it is hard to teach an old dog a new trick and whatever info that you have, we
shouldn't waste our breath talking about it.....I just wonder why this talk in
the heart of the Mormonism was not blasted on the CNN or Times Magazine or 60
mintues or 20/20...it is because the whole media still want America to believe
that we are not christians, I would love for them to invite one of our
missionaries to speak in their synagogues, or at the Vatican or where ever I
swear they will all feel threatened and laugh the Mormons out of town, but I it
won't surprise me.....Mortz, get a life
DavidI have that book the SEER. I don't think this book is published any
longer. I read the book and It really through me off just a bit with the LDS
religion. It's a good thing the church doesn't live by the teachings of Orson
Pratt or I would go inactive. I believe that Mary Magdalene was the only wife of
Jesus. I don't think it's right just because some strange LDS person has a
notion that Jesus was a polygamist should cause any great emotional
disturbance... It just simply NEVER happened! People just need to leave Jesus
alone. They know nothing about his person life with his wife Mary M. Guessers
out there just need to leave it a lone. Don't try to bring the Savior down to
your level. Won't happen! No way!
I hear from numerous Mormons that they dont teach Jesus had three wives. Thats a
good and wise decision because substantiating such a claim is hard with the
evidence from the Holy Bible. Do Mormons BELIEVE Jesus had three wives? A Mormon
cant answer to that question as a big NO. Their silent answer is YES.
The Man Jesus DID NOT HAVE THREE WIVES! It's only a good point of view for those
lusty men who want it for themselves. Lets not get on the kick of whats good for
man is not also good for the woman. Some men out there just need to get a life
and quit putting Jesus in their silly lusty dreams for another woman. If People
can make up something that Jesus did than we can make it right for us too. YA
Please, no more schmoltz from Moltz please. Clarify your sources...but no more
schmo. PS..Since when in Christian doctrine is marriage a bad thing.
Did not the Apostle Paul say something like this, "A man without the woman, or
the woman without the man is NOT in the Lord". Many of us continue to believe
this to be an enlightened statement coming from Higher sources than Paul.
LDS doctrine continues to morph and change with the trends in modern times.
Early members wouldnt recognize the beliefs of today. But that is the same with
the Catholic church also.
I'm surprised at why the Mormons are screaming at the poster Motz for the
sources. A mormon should find the sources themselves. If a mormon does not know,
then the Church is not telling the truth to you. Keeping that search aside, no
Mormon who have posted comments to the article has answered my question. Do you
believe or you dont believe Jesus was married, or he had three wives? Give me a
YES or NO. Don't give me a spin!
What beliefs have changed in the Catholic Church from the beginning? Name one
This is really depressing. Religion doesn't make much sense to me. All religions
are, are man made to what ever feels good to those who want to believe in
something. A true human flaw. This is just the reason why I don't put my penguin
suit every Sunday and go to church. It really brings me down. I like thinking
for myself. I do believe that Jesus once lived. I think people are making his
life up generation after generation. I would like him to appear to me and let me
know whats really going on in this mixed up world. I don't want to listen to a
bunch of NO IT ALLS who really are just guessing and making it convient for
themselves. Wheres the evidents?
Did not the Apostle Paul say something like this "A man without the woman, or
the woman without the man is NOT in the Lord".Show me the sources
I'll make a small clarification so you don't get confused. The church as a whole
does not believe Jesus had three wives. There is nothing taught by the church
that such doctrine is true. However it is possible a small portion of LDS
members might have the three wife opinion. The most common assumption... and I
do mean assumption...NOT DOCTRINE.... is that Jesus was married while on this
earth. That theory makes sense but has never been directly preached. So to sum
it up the answer if you want a majority LDS vote would be NO Jesus did not have
Boy it took until about 7:00 am this morning (after the original comment was
posted in December) to get the "antis" commenting. And then there was a big gap
until about 10:30 am.You "antis" almost missed the ship! There might
have been a Mormon who read the article without you being around to clarify our
beliefs for us and save our souls from the awful thing that is Mormonism. Is it
because you were too busy over on the Postum article making fun of our beliefs
and practices to come and post things out of your little anti-Mormon books? I particularly enjoy the "I'm LDS" comments from the "antis." How sad it
must be to go through life feeling like you have to tear down and criticize
To WHAT HAPPENED?You are anti nonmember. So I suppose this makes you
better and a judge of all. Whatever anyone one's religion is on here is their
own right. I suppose it's still free speech to all people in this country. This
sort of stuff is what I really dislike about some LDS members. No one else has
aright to his or her beliefs. Gee, you are so righteous and arrogant. You act
just the way Jesus would want you too?... arrogant and self
righeous!......SORRY! NOT THE WAY OF JESUS! Jesus did NOT have three
wives rather you want believe this is your very own right. But leave me to mine.
What does Jesus' marital status have to do with the article? And since when did
our "voting" on such a thing make it true or not true? But OK, I'll play your
game. I'm LDS. It seems logical to me that Jesus would have been married, as
it was customary for those who spoke in synagogues to be married, so YES to the
first part. Do I believe he was polygamous? I'd have to say NO to that, but
I'm not going to get my knickers in a twist over someone else who thinks he
might have been. Tell you what, next time you and I see Jesus, we can ask him,
that should settle the disagreement, right? :)
That is very interesting. The majority would vote Jesus had no three wives. And
some would vote Jesus had three wives. Aren't they all from the same Church you
belong to? Why the Church itself does not deny this blasphemy against Jesus if
the majorty vote for NO. A CHURCH PROMOTING SPECULATIONS, ASSUMPTIONS and at the
same time claiming as the ONLY TRUE CHURCH is confused as you are confused.
Don't spin the whole issue by blaming the thoughtful thinkers as anti-mormons.
Feel sorry for you guys!
The challenge to point out changes in the Catholic church is easy. Without much
thought to the subject, here are a few.1. priests were only required
to not marry a few hundred years ago, not in antiquity.2. the Catholic
church refused to believe that the earth was round and persecuted scholars who
proved otherwise.3. The chuch imposed the inquisition in Spain and Italy,
killing an torturing thousands. Do they still believe this.4. The chuch
used to teach that the Jews were responsible for Christs murder. They recently
apologized for this. If there was no change in belief, then no apology was
necessary.I could go on an on, but I was asked for one change in the
HEY! No one on here knew Jesus personally. So quit making stuff up about him and
his life. Although, he could of been married to Mary Mag., but that is it! No
others! Don't mix this with Mormon polyagamy! NO WAY ON EARTH! That is all man
made arrangements and just a form of slavery. You guys who believe this malarkey
need to REPENT!
I'm confused. Many of the comments are pointing out a distinction, which makes
no difference:"Official Mormon doctrine does NOT teach that Jesus
was married (to three women or thirty!), BUT we know that Mormon doctrine DOES
say that to attain the highest level of the celestial kingdom, a man must be
sealed to a worth women (section 132)".So....we do believe he was
married. I personally don't care one way or another, but we do believe that.
Maybe no GA has the courage to actually discuss it, but it is true. End of
Talk to me about their beliefs of the Holy Bible, Jesus Christ which have been
changed. I'm not a Catholic, but I thought earth was flat when I was like 8 or 9
years old. I think the earth is round now after my "brain" developed.
I'm inclined to believe that if Jesus were married during his ministry (i.e.
from the age of 30 to his death at 33), the Gospels would have mentioned that
fairly significant detail.On the other hand, if Jesus made it to 30
without getting married, there was one Jewish mama who definitely fell down on
the job.It's possible that Jesus was married at some point, but that
his wife died before he turned 30. (The life expectancy of a wife in those days
wasn't great; childbirth alone killed women like flies.) Nothing much is
mentioned of Jesus' adolescence and early adulthood, so you can't necessarily
draw any inference one way or the other from the silence of the scriptural
record of that period. Maybe he was, and maybe he wasn't.
This is so old news its pathetic. This article was Published Monday, Nov. 15,
2004 9:12 a.m. MST, but to tell you the truth... Who cares?
Jesus was not married, neither he had three wives. If he was married, that
reason would have been used against him while he was prosecuted by the Jews.
Jesus's disciple St.Thomas came to India in AD 52. He taught many high caste
Hindus (brahmins) about Christ. The Christians in the Southern part of India are
the followers of St.Thomas' own testimony of Jesus. I have studied many written
documents from the year 400 AD. The Christians in India are strong as their
first love to Christ. They know more about Christ, his life and teachings.
The early Catholic church got their mistaken belief that the earth was flat FROM
the bible. All of the beliefs of the Catholic church were derived from their
understanding of the bible. They had no other scripture than the bible. And they
were wrong in many of their beliefs as I have provided above.
People just like to argue and fight! It is the true nature of all humans. As for
me, I respect all the views written on here. It help me understand those around
me just a bit better. Also, Deseret News Thanks for the many humorous blogs.
They make my day!
Show me from the Bible where it is said that the earth is flat, and that being
used by Catholics to believe that.
This discussion is all speculation and a member of any of the multitudes of
Christian sects as well as Mormon, Jew, Muslim, atheist, etc. could discuss this
doctrinal issue until they were blue in the face, but IT WOULDN'T MATTER. That is not the point of the article here. The point as I read it is
that we need to live the precepts of our religions. Love your neighbor does not
mean love your neighbor unless he's Mormon and in that case, lie and throw
accusations around and make anonymous false allegations on blogs and doing this
will assure that you are a good Christian."WE need to love the
Mormons, but surely not at the cost of abandoning even the minimum elements of
objectivity." That's what Marshall R Motz said. Perhaps he has a special edition
of the Bible that exempts the "love one another" part from applying to Mormons.
If you google the name of the original commentor, you can find the discussion
out of which his comment came and why he posted here. Wow. A lot of vitriol and
misrepresentations and half truths out there.
Being a new kid in the town, I have been invited for a "dinner" at a Mormon
friend's home. At the end of the dinner, the atmosphere has been changed into
reading the Book Of Mormon and praises to Joseph Smith. Whatelse to say than
"Trapped"! Talking about my experience to another friend who is not a Mormon, he
had the same experience from this Mormon friend also. We all have laugher with
Mormons especially when it comes to SPECULATIONS!
What happen to the subject Jesus, talk on here?TO Iaguna/Laguna: Let me break it to you gently, the earth is not flat. I believe
Christopher Columbus is the one who thought at one time that the world was flat,
but he soon got over it.
More Mormon urban legends, don't we just love em!!!Stick to the Scriptures
and stop the second guessing.
This line of thought is ridiculous. Look at all of the time that has been
wasted by speculation. Nobody knows the marital status of the Savior, so let's
just leave it at that. You have your beliefs and I have mine. Whichever is
right, great! In the long run, it really doesn't matter.
TO EXCALUBER,JESUS ALWAYS MATTERS! He is our savior and without him
we are all be in big trouble big time. He died for our sins. Could any of us do
that for the whole world? There are days however, that i would certainly like to
do so, but I know it wouldn't be possible for none of us have the power for this
sacrafice without the help of Gods. So we need to appreciate this great man for
what he stood for. Plus, throw away all the twisted crosses that resemble his
death where he was brutally killed. The cross was a weapon for the murder our
savior. It's ugly! Even satan worshipers wear them upside down. GRIZZLY!
I repeat what has been said earlier: Christ's marital status cannot be found in
Church doctrine nor does it appear in any revelation or scripture of the LDS
faith. Do not confuse speculation with revelation. The prophet
Joseph Smith wrote: "We believe all that God has revealed, all that He does now
reveal, and we believe that He will yet reveal many great and important things
pertaining to the Kingdom of God."Since God has not revealed this
matter it cannot be counted as Church doctrine. The only way a Mormon should
believe in the matter at hand is if it is revealed to the prophet.
Your prophet Joseph Smith said God revealted to him that Lamanites are the
principal ancestors of the American Indians. Now that has been changed in the
Book Of Mormon. Which prophet got the revelation now that the Lamanites are
among and not the principal ancestors of the American Indians? Dear Friend, how
do you spin that subject with speculation and revelation?
A temple-worthy Mormon man told me this years ago:"The problem with most
Mormons is they have problems discerning revelations."
Would someone please get this article printed in the southern newspapers?
Once again you are confusing the sources and church doctrine. Joseph Smith DID
NOT say that the Lamanites were principal ancestors of the American Indians.
The Introduction to the Book of Mormon was written by Bruce R McConkie and is
not considered doctrine, just an introduction. Apostles have opinions just like
LDS members have opinions, the same can be said for all faiths. There is a set
doctrine but people are free to speculate as they would. The difference is that
they receive revelations occasionally on church doctrine.
Well, DNA says it all! no two ways about it.
Marshall Motz: As a life long LDS person I can say I've never heard it taught
by us that Jesus had 3 wives here on Earth. The ONLY specualtion I've heard is
Jesus had one wife, who MAY have been Mary Magdalene. Why and how would Jesus
be married to his own mother (Mary) as you suggest? As to anyone
who thinks Jesus being married makes Him less devine, I don't see how. Jesus
always led by example so if we're expected to marry, naturally He would do it
too.So my answer to YesorNO is, Yes... I believe Jesus was/is
married or at least might have been. I'd never rule it out. I like many others
believe the wedding He attended in the Bible might have been His own.Keep in mind the Bible has passed through many hands, back long ago when the
Catholic Church started and put the Bible together it's entirely possible they
edited out any direct reference to Jesus being married (as they apparently think
a man more holy without sex, which is why their priests don't marry... unless
I'm mistaken, Catholics feel free to correct me).
Just a minute here ! I see a definite trend anytime I read an article regarding
Mitt/politics/LDS etc. etc. There are a few individuals out there who get their
jollies with their provocative, highly inflammatory comments which are nowhere
close to the truth. They post the most disgusting lies then just sit back and
watch as we LDS folks reply and laugh their disgusting heads off. I read a
comment yesterday about how we LDS despise the Constitution and Mitt has an
agenda which follows that concept. And today we read that we believe Christ had
three wives. I attended BYU after serving a mission in 1966-1968. So I have
been around for a few years like many of you. Never have I heard the likes of
this and lotsa other outrageous lies which pop up on the internet. Great
article DN, and intended to show positive relations between LDS and our
Evangelical friends. Most of us are trying to live as best we can plus
trying to build bridges with our neighbors of other faiths and ethnic origins.
We are all trying to make our neighborhoods and communities and schools better.
It is rather comical to hear true-believers in Mormonism, Islam, Catholicism or
any doctrinaire religion try to explain how the faux paus promoted by their
churches for hundreds of years really arent as absurd as they sound. When the
Catholics imprisoned scientists (Galileo) during the dark ages for promoting
that Genesis' describing that the planets and sun revolving around the earth was
not correct. Or the Mormon church disavowing previous leaders laughable
statements that have been disproven. Religion is evolving and constantly trying
to cover its path so as to not appear absurd.
I like to hear a story about honest Christians like this one. I heard an eye
opening comment about how we compare other religions. We should not look at our
best characteristics or history and another religion's worst. Compare best to
best recieving your sources from people knowledgeable in that religion. (Not
from outside sources.) I'm ashamed to say that I have sometimes done
exactly what the above says not to do. As a member of the LDS church recieving
all of this negative attention and hearing twisted lies and half truths has made
me realize I shouldn't be hypocritical and should look at all religions fairly.
That's my two cents, just thought I'd share.
I just love it when people I have never met tell me what I believe.
Wow, must really be a dry news week. Or the Deseret Morning News is trying to
pull out the stops (maybe even a miracle from the dusty archives?) in the
attempt to position the LDS church as mainstream, respected and pragmatic, with
the hope of doing something to help salvage Mitt's crumbling presidential
You know, I don't care if Jesus was married or not, to 1, 2, or 15 wives. What
does it matter? He is the Savior and Redeemer of the world. Yours and mine. I
guess at some point in time when we cross the veil we will find out all of these
questions, Ya think? PS AND I don't care if you are a Jew, Budhist, Catholic,
Presbyterian, Baptist or whatever! I am a member of the Church of JESUS CHRIST
of Latter-day saints and have never heard it taught that Jesus was even married.
But if he was, so what? Does it change anything? There are so many bitter,
hateful people in this world and I've just read a few articles from some of
them. Get a life, do something good for someone else. Serve your
neighbor---You'll be a lot happier.
Polygamy is the evil designs of men. It is no divine practice. It is the man
made practice of a self idulging man. These guys have no more potential than
that of a great ape. Jesus was not a polygamist. He was normal!
Ya know what I like about all this. The article was interesting and positive
and most of the comments have nothing to do with the article.
You guys are funny. Many strange comments here.But man, this speech
in the tabernacle is HUGE. We will never come to a consensus until after Christ
returns, on belief. Until then we will always believe differently. But there
is nothing wrong with that. What I like here is people tearing down some pretty
huge walls and trying to gain understanding of each others beliefs instead of
just saying I am right and you should get out if you don't like it. This is big
for Mormons to welcome in a fellow Christian of a different denomination, and
was even bigger of Mouw to also come to grips with Mormons. I love it. This is
a great day. Don't be upset - he didn't compromise, he gained understanding,
something we should all try. If you are upset, you need better understanding
yourself. Keep working on it.
The problem in these discussions seems to be based on the false assumption that
the reproductive act is inherently sinful. The only time when it is is in the
case of adultery, fornication and other such abuses of this part of the human
experience. If it was sinful, why did God command us to be fruitful and
replenish the earth. It seems like we have a contradiction here. Did God say to
multiply and at the same time say it is a sin. I don't think The Supreme Being
is the author of confusion. I think he leaves that up to some men.
abraham issac and jacob practiced polygamy as a commandment from god. it is in
I'm enjoying the knee jerk reaction of many who want to vilify the church, but
don't know that Moroni told Joseph Smith that the church would grow the more it
was opposed. Historically that has been proven, so bring it on!
Wonderful, spiritual people can have opinions that are wrong. Orson Pratt
thought something, and he was a leader in the early church. So what? Doesn't
make what he thought correct. It's his OPINION, nothing more.Why is
it that Mormons have to answer for everything every church leader has ever said,
but all other churches and religions get a pass? Methodist's Wesley said the
borders of hell are lined with the skulls of infants that died without baptism.
The Catholic church has had quite a history from the Inquision, to the sale of
indulgences, to married popes, to the pedophilia scandals. All religious groups
have odd practices and things in their backgrounds. Why is it that the LDS are
the only ones who have to answer for them?We love God and try to
love and serve others. For this devotion, we're ridiculed and are told we aren't
even Christian. Baloney. God knows better.This article was a good
one. It is nice for the world to be made aware that some decent, thinking
evangelicals accept our love and devotion for Christ as legitimate. We don't
need the recognition but do appreciate it.Thanks for DN for
reprinting the article.
Before you jump on me for being an anti-mormon,I was born in the Church in 1947
served a mission married in the temple, and have 9 kids all of whom are active.
Don't be angry with me because of something you do not want to believe. (Heleman
13:26-28)talks of Samuel the laminitie. I do not profess to be a prophet but
Brigham Young, Heber C. Kimball, Orson Hyde, and Orson Pratt were. Just as much
as the 12 today are. I was wrong about the Heber C. Kimball quote. It was not
him but Orson Hyde (JD 2:210) Before you start condemning the JD read the title
page where Brigham Young states how careful they were in compiling these talks,
and they were approved by him. Brigham Youngalso states that Jesus was
married. (JD 13:309) as did Orson Pratt in the Seer p.172. There are your
quotes. There is also the gospel of Phillip (you can find it on the internet).
It is an early Christian gospel that was not included in the New Testament.
There it states that Jesus was married to Mary Magdalene. In the 40day ministy
of Jesus. Hugh Nibley comments on it (fair.org)
That explains why they had to close the Tabernacle; to repair the damage. Now
it'll withstand hellfire, damnation, and earthquakes.
I'm a member of the church. I served a mission. My family has been in the church
since the 1830s. I have # children, all active in the church.Please
don't quote Orson Hyde, Orson Pratt, Hugh Nibley, or anyone else to tell me what
I believe. They were all as human as I and also prone to error and
speculation.Let me fill you in on a little secret. Most members of
the church don't even know who Hugh Nibley is. They also don't know who the two
Orsons are and it doesn't matter, since they are not Jesus and do not need to
believe in any of these three individuals in order to be saved.
It's nice to be nice.
Can someone tell me where in the Bible it tells of baptizing babies and what
passages tell about Jesus laying down his resurrected body to become a spirit
being again? We read prophecies of His coming, His Birth, His life, His death,
His resurection, His ascension, and His second coming. But where is His body
buried and when did hHe give die again. Wouldn't that (made up) event be
important enough to include in the Bible?
I read this when it happened a few years ago. I enjoyed reading it then, and am
now enjoying forwarding it to every huckalemming who is voting for Huckabee only
because he's a Southern Baptist preacher, and thinks LDS are evil cult members.
If anyone knows folks in Iowa, forward this to them, and ask them to keep
forwarding it on.
to wow and others. You write off these men OP, OH, and Nibley as if they have
done nothing for the Church. O. Hyde traveled 18 month Israel at the request of
Joseph Smith to dedicate the land of Israel for the return of the Jews. He did
it without purse or scrip. He was pennyless when he started and pennyless when
he came back but the Lord provided for him. Orson Pratt spent his whole life
defending the Gospel of Jesus Christ. Hugh Nibley has also spent his life
defending the prophet Josep Smith. Yet you pass them off as nothing in your
mind. I can not wait until you get to have a talk with each of them and compare
what you have done for the Gospel compared to them. good luck with that. what
offends me so much with people of your opinion, is you do not realize what these
men had to do to get the Church in the position where it now is. what have you
done? I reveir these men. I am grateful that they were there when they were
needed. they left on missions when ever God called.
The comment about baptizing babies comes from the Catholic Doctrine of "Original
Sin" and I was baptized as a baby at birth Lutheran. However the scriptures
does talk about an age of accountability, which the LDS Church and the Church of
Christ both believe in, having knowledge to know what the covenant of baptism is
and being accountable for one's own sins and not Adams's sins. The Age of
accountability is not made up by Joseph Smith; it's talked about in the Hebrew
Scriptures of the Old Testament.
About Jesus having three wives: Jesus being over the age of 30, may have had
one wife, but not three wives. The New Testament writers of the events during
Christs days, do not state or indicate his marriage, however some speculate he
was married. It was Jewish Custom for men over 30 to be married, I suppose he
did practice that custom after all he was born a Jew from the House of David.
During Moses' time, or Abraham's, or all of the old prophets who have lived, not
everything they said became record. Only actual revelation would be recorded
since it was hard and time consuming to make their records. Fast forward to
modern times where it is not hard to record what people say. Almost everything
that has come out of our leaders' mouths since the 1800s has been recorded,
whether it was just their "personal opinions" or true LDS doctrine. Everything
has been recorded and you can find it all in the abundance of books floating out
there. There are many ideas that are "speculated" about, but the church will
never put out a doctrine that is pure "speculation".
20 'some odd' years ago, I became inactive in the church. Coming from a strong
LDS family, my family was disappointed, but always supportive of my decision.
As I have gotten older, I have been focused on finding truth in my life...why am
I here? Where did I come from?...and Where am I going? While I have great
respect for all faiths, the LDS church is the only way, in my opinion that you
can find these answers (with all due respect). I am not blogging here with an
agenda, because I am still inactive, but I pray and seek spiritual guidance
everyday, by the way all of us have that option available to us. As a fairly
educated man I recently started to write a book, with all of the internet access
and information available, it is still quite a challenge for me...and I am drawn
to a simple fact...how did a fairly uneducated young man write (if as the
naysayers say he did)quite possibly the most complicated book of history of all
time. The answer read the B of M seek out the truth and pray!
Thanks " nice" I agree...It IS nice to be nice
I would agree that we can't take every word spoken by LDS leadership as
doctrine. It's sometimes very difficult to keep in mind that these are men just
like me with biases and products of their generation. Although they will
receive revelation/doctrine, they mostly speak of their own accord taking
advantage of their free agency. Sure it would be incredible if these men were
infallible and only acted as a mouth piece for God, but that would be too easy
and would require no faith.
Re: To ThomasYou are right in saying that Jesus was not ever married. Or
at least it would be very very unlikely.Men married later in the middle
east during and before the life of Christ. About 40 years old is the typical age
for marriage of a male. There are several sources for this from literature of
the era. (Bible, On Man in The Universe, and others less known.) There can be
exceptions to this'rule', for which Jesus doesn't seem to qualify.Also,
people married relatives, in those days. There is no defined family
relationship between Jesus and Mary Magdalene.If some of you have been
taught to believe Jesus Christ was married by well meaning Institute or Seminary
teachers, you have been mistaught.(sorry)It is difficult to go into depth
about a subject like this in so short a space, but Jesus being a single man
during his life time is indeed very very logical.So can you tell me how to
get started on studying the ministry of Thomas in India, or anything more about
this please (if you are still out there!)
To Laguna:You are not the only one to keep repeating the mistaken idea
that Galileo was imprisoned, threatened, etc because he said the earth wasn't
the center of the universe. Neither did anyone believe the earth was flat when
Columbus crossed the ocean. Hermetic /Platonic philosophy was freely taught in
Italian universities previous to these men and no one went to prison!The
argument between the Catholic Church and Galileo was not a science vs religion
argument, bur a religion vs religion argument. Would anyone like to know
what really happened?I don't know if this will get printed because it is a
little off topic, but the other ones did, so I am giving it a try.
To Errors,If you are of the OPINION that the Catholic church didnt punish
scholars and scientists who correctly argued against the churchs errroneous
doctrines, then you have attempted to rewrite history.
You do realize that today or at anytime in history, just because many or the
majority tend to do something doesn't mean everyone does it too. So I'm
sorry... unless you are secretly hiding a time machine you used to go back and
see how it really was, you can't state as fact that Jesus was NOT married. He
might have been or He might not, nobody today knows for certain.
final ..., and Elder Orson Pratt himself sanctioned the repudiation.
(B. H. Roberts, Defense of the Faith and the Saints, Vol.2, p.294)The official 1865 repudiation is found here: Messages of the First Presidency,
Vol.2, p.238 - p.239I find it interesting that the Church repudiated
this source in 1865, then again in 1907 (Roberts) and now I need to again in
2008 after another century.Another argument that should not be
ignored is that Psalms 45:9 may have been referring to Christ only symbolically.
These wives may refer to churches while the Queen refers to The Church. This
is the position that most modern scholars will take if they are embarrassed by
the thought that God might be a polygamist like Abraham, Isaac and Jacob