Do mormons think Jesus Christ was married ?
Some do. The marriage at Cana is believed by some to have been his marriage. Some believe he was married to Mary and Martha. It is not a doctrine/dogma of the LDS church, nor is it found in LDS scripture.
Some feel that Jesus was required to enter into Celestial Marriage just as all males are required in order to attain Celestial Glory. What is different about Jesus, as the First Born of the Eternal, is he reached exaltation in eternity past without entering into mortality, which is the “normal” way one achieves exaltation.
I was taught, “unofficially” (as Publisher said) that Jesus had to be married because it was a requirement to enter the Celestial Kingdom, and it’s theorized that he married Mary Magdalene. I never heard anything about being married to Martha, though.
One has to keep in mind that in Mormon theology, Jesus, while son of God and the firstborn, is an equal to Man, but was blessed with the grace of a sinless life. He is a physical child of God just as much as we are in their theology, and just as much as our children are to us on this earth. He was begotten of a heavenly mother as we were. God, Christ’s Heavenly Father, is an exhalted man, and if we live a life on this earth that is worthy of exaltation, we too will someday become as God is now, Gods of our own worlds with our own spiritual children.
So since Christ was a man, as we are, and as God once was, it is simply logical that Christ would have to be married, as that was and is the Eternal law.
1)The Jesus Christ of Mormonism is not the Jesus Christ of the Bible.
The Mormon Jesus is the son of this man-god. The Mormon Jesus is the brother of Lucifer, and according to LDS teaching, he married several of the Marys of the New Testament and it was his wedding feast at Cana. He is not, to the LDS church, “God incarnate” as the Bible plainly states.
2) The Mormons also totally avoid the Biblical teaching of Christ’s atonement for OUR sins but claim it was HIS sin in the garden of Gethsemane where he sweat"as it were" great drops of blood.
Gee, Mormons, are great at avoiding the truth…I am seeing a pattern here…:shrug:
As publisher mentioned it is a some do believe that Christ was married, and there are many who have never even thought about the question in sufficient detail to have considered the point. It is not doctrinal in the strictest sense and is never taught in any general meeting venue.
Nonetheless, there is some scriptural rational behind one considering the possibility.
One is simply the edict given in the, Garden of Eden, that mankind was given the command to multiple and replenish the earth. From an LDS perspective, where conception is physically possible that is an edict that applies to all mankind. Judaism which is birthed in a period of time more proximate to the Adam and Eve era seems also to have perpetuated the sanctity of marriage and an emphasis on procreation. In fact one of the primary arguments in both Catholic and LDS doctrines that is commonly used to question the validity of some lifestyle choices between members of the same sex is simply that marriage was intended primarily for procreation and to perpetuate life from one generation to the next. So important was it that offspring exists that it forms the foundation of Jewish principles of Levirate marriage also known as Yibbum.
That is point number one. Point number two is relative to the statement found in Matthew 3:13-15 for the reasoning behind Christ’s need to be baptized…“To fulfill all righteousness.” He has no sin so clearly the function of baptism as a cleansing ordinance is not applicable. However, the condition of baptism was required in order for him to fulfill some aspect of expectation and requirement…The specifics of which we may vary in interpretation, but hopefully we can at least acknowledge the imperative that Christ is placing on being obedient to the commandments of the Father.
Thus LDS would conjecture that Christ was perfect in all of the commandments of God even to the point of fulfilling a commandment that one might of thought was not required. He makes it clear that it was required. So since the commandment was given to man to marry, LDS would class that as a requirement for the same purpose as baptism…to fulfill all righteousness.
I was never taught that there were many wives, but there was a lot of “unofficial” teachings that floated around in my youth. (Don’t even get me started on the Three Nephites :doh2:) I also don’t recollect ever being taught that it was his sin that he was sweating blood for. I was taught that Christ was sinless when I was Mormon.
That being said, I was taught that Christ’s sacrifice happened in the garden, and not on the cross and during the Passion. If you ever go to a Mormon church or temple (and I would highly advise against it), you will not see a cross or pictures of the crucifixion. You will, however, most probably see a picture of Christ in the garden during the Atonement, something like this.
I really think you are being disingenuous here. I will give you credit for believing in Jesus Christ and worshipping him according to the dictates of your own conscience. I appreciate that you are willing to dedicate yourself to making the effort of following his commandments and conforming your life to his standards. These are valuable and ultimately very important in your life. If everyone in the world were to embrace Jesus Christ as many Catholics do the world would be a better place.
However, the practice which has existed forever, of my dogma is better than your dogma is a petty non-charitable approach that is better left to the sandbox our children play in. I know my Savior, I believe in him with all of my heart and I will wait upon his judgments of my errant mistakes and understandings. I suspect and hope that his merciful approach to judgment will benefit both you and I equally. My previous post gives you some of the reasoning behind the LDS approach, not all but those I thought would be germane and helpful to the discussion. Nonetheless, I hope to illustrate that using strictly the terms of the scriptures it is feasible to objectively explain our position. We don’t make it up, we don’t pull it out of a hat, it is “as the Bible plainly states” a clear course of action for Christ to fulfill all righteousness. What you consider that “righteousness” and what I consider it may differ but I am positive it includes that Christ kept all of the commandments. I see that as including the commandment to multiply and replenish the earth. You may not but perhaps we can simply accept that it is Christ’s role to judge between you and I – and boy is that a relief to me.
As the publisher mentioned-- it could be logical that Jesus was married-- as he was a normal human Jewish male.
But my opinion- given the task at hand - what he was given to do- it would complicate things-- a lot - he chose to remain single. Many Jewish men at that time chose to remain unmarried and it was not uncommon either.
Jesus was conceived without sin - and remained sinless
Actually, it is not logical that he was married as men are married. He is the groomsman and his bride is the Catholic Church. According to Catholic theology, the primary point of marriage is procreation. With this in mind, it seeems illogical for Christ to get married as God the Son was never meant to have children. God the Son was sent on this earth to be the redeemer of mankind, not to procreate. “The task at hand” was the will of almighty God, and this will was followed by Mary and by Christ from the moment of their conception.
I was taught that Jesus was married. I was also taught the God was married to “Holy Mother” but that we could not talk about her.
The only way to get to the Celestial Kingdom was to get married
Okay, so what was up with that? Looking back, that sure is silly, isn’t it? I remember, one hymn, “Oh My Father” (one that we used to sing) used to talk about Heavenly Mother but we weren’t allowed to talk about her? I seem to remember her being too “sacred” to talk about or something.
Most of your observations are fine and don’t require any clarification per se. For me there is only one qualification for your very pleasant and reasoned response - thank you.
We do acknowledge that Christ is different and thus superior to mortal man. We do not claim to understand all the ways he was different but it is apparent that there are several.
We percieve that he could die as a product of a mortal mother and that he had the ability for eternal life as a result of the gifts of his Father. His life was his to give or to keep which is part of what makes his sacrifice infinate and an act of pure love.
One other thought concerning whether he suffered more in the garden or on the cross. To a thoughtful LDS, it is apparent that all facets of the process of his suffering were very important. It started in the Garden of Gethsemane, it ended a bit later on a cross. The totality of the experience was required to accomplish God the father’s requirements of his Son.
From an LDS perspective, and this is just my own personal consideration upon the subject…not church doctrine, but I find the entire concept of suffering so greatly that one could drive the blood from coursing through his veins, that one could, suffer independent of being inflicted with the pain of having spikes driven through his hands and feet, but that one could suffer so wholly and so completely from no outside physical source but from the pure love and painful pleading in our behalf with such utter anguish as to actually bleed from every pore - that is compelling. Nothing but his pure love drove that degree of painful ultimate distress. He did not shed tears for us because he hurt from having his flesh ripped apart by torture, nor did he suffer because he was being subjected to asphyxiation from an inability to fill his lungs to the point he was slowly, painfully, excruciatingly struggling to take the next and then the next and then the next increasingly more difficult breath. The suffering in the Garden was the purest suffering of a God that loved his children and while his body, at that point, endured no physical torture, spiritually he suffered so completely as to overwhelm the natural functions of his flesh. I find that as a portion of the total package of all that he endured this part certainly evidences the complete, total and purest degree of love that man can comprehend. In this type of love, he alone, of all that have travailed on earth he alone could even have the capacity to endure such a thing.
Next that he should be required to endure the rigors of physical torture as he hung on the cross is a significant aspect of the atonement. However, from my personal perspective I can relate to that pain more easily than I can the suffering in the Garden. For a fact, if you drive nails through my hands and feet, and hang me on a cross I can surely expect that I can relate to that cause of physical anguish. Many hung on crosses and suffered through the pains and travail of the death that followed. But in all history, only one ever spiritually suffered so great as did Jesus Christ my Savior and yours simply as an act of love driven by a heart filled with anguish for the sins that separated us from God that all mankind might have the opportunity to reside with him some day. Only one.
Still perhaps one might allow us to see the totality of the event and recognize that whether it was the Garden or the Cross the event was singular and remarkable and a precious gift for all of us.
Like others on this board, I was raised Mormon and have converted to Catholicism. My father (ultra-devout Mormon, prior stake president, currently a patriarch), just a couple of weeks ago was discussing with me the Mormon belief that sin was atoned for in the Garden of Gethsamene and that death was overcome at the resurrection. He said that focusing on Christ’s death on the Cross was focusing on the wrong thing. I’ve heard this said many times before by various Mormons. I’ve also heard it used as the reason why Mormons don’t have crosses or crucifixes, since that would be celebrating the event that killed Christ, when the true celebration should be of the resurrection.
As you may remember there are, in LDS theology 3 kingdoms - Telestial, Terrestrial and Celestial. Within the Celestial there are also three additional divisions or levels.
Of those three the bottom two do not have a requirement of marriage, however the top level does require temple marriage. The bottom two levels of the Celestial Kingdom only require baptism.
As far as not discussing our Heavenly Mother, I can only guess that must have been unique to your experience as it has not been the case in the areas where I have lived and attended church. As you may be aware the LDS have a unified curriculum and you can attend a church generally anywhere in the world and get the same lesson. Still that does not preclude that some individuals may exert a misguided, in some cases, appropriate in others resistance to discussing some aspects of church material that is not directly related to the general doctrines of the church.
I’m not disagreeing with the general nature of this observation, however, if you were to go back and inquire as to the necessity of this aspect of the atonement and part of Christ’s experience on the Cross:
And about the ninth hour Jesus cried with a loud voice, saying, Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani? that is to say, My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?
If you were to ask him concerning this event and the necessity of it he would acknowledge to you that this also was a pivotal, significant and absolutely required aspect of Christ’s suffering on the cross. However, I will let you inquire of him as to that particular.
Do Mormons still practice a Baptism for the dead ?
One more thought, I am not disagreeing with you in that Mormons like people of all religions sometimes get going on what they believe and such and they do not give full treatment to a concept and embrace its totality. Your Father knows what you believe and by default may have simply wanted to point out the overall distinction without complimenting aspects that are in agreement with your perspectives to some degree. If you read my response and add to it the second one to your post without seeing me as a Mormon you might be able to see that the scriptures embrace the principles I speak to. However, it is a general weakness of men to want to focus on the aspects that differentiate us as opposed to the points we can maturely agree on.
For the record, we do feel that the Gethsemane should not be overlooked. If you read my post you can choose to see why a Mormon might see that suffering as very different from the Cross. For us, we freely accept that there were thousands that died on crosses. We do not negate the power of that experience, however as I mentioned only one perfect person could experience what forced him to bleed from every pore. No one else could ever muster that kind of love so completely and so selflessly that they could override the natural functions of the flesh. Only one and that was Christ.
That is a distinction that is important to LDS but I hope you do not feel that that is in any way taking away from the fact that I appreciate the fact that the cross is the central symbol that allows you to focus on the atonement of Christ.
I am not asking you to accept this perspective, but I am asking you to think it through with an eye towards, not understanding yourself and your views on the matter but to try to see why one might consider that event meaningful enough to want to acknowledge it from their perspective as significantly different than what any other person ever endured. It is not without merit. I see the same thing concerning the cross, as do others in the LDS church, aspects of it were also unique to the Saviors experience, especially the point where his Father withdrew as I pointed out in my earlier post.
However, the cross does represent a stereotypical interpretation from an LDS viewpoint and does not see the entirety of the event in the same way that we do view it. In order that we might emphasize that we perceive some additional aspects to the entire process we felt it appropriate to separate from a symbolism that generally is interpreted as a cross alone experience and did not embrace the toltality of the experience. I don’t know that this is a crisis event but it provides a focal point for you and I and others to maturely consider that invites discussion.
As well, I will not fail to admit that many LDS are just as “afraid” of their own lack of knowledge or pure understanding and become somewhat defensive and want to focus on that which separates us. It is a human weakness to have to defend and blow the trump for our particular brand of group think. However, I know several who have as great a testimony of Jesus Christ as they have for the church (and there is a difference) and they will accept your love of Jesus Christ for his gift of the cross as they do their love of Jesus Christ for the gifts of Gethsemane and the cross. We are an imperfect people subject to the same foibles of behavior as all of Christ’s imperfect children. I think when we are being charitable we make greater efforts to truly understand one another and less about defending the turf we occupy.
Catholics in no way feel that Gethsemane should be “overlooked”. Of the 20 mysteries the Rosary, the Agony in the Garden is one of them. Yes, there were thousands who died on crosses. But Christ did not die on a cross. Christ was falsely convicted of blasphemy, savagely beaten, jailed and tortured with a crown of thorns and heavy robes on his freash wounds, forced to drag his method of torture to his place of death, was nailed to a tree and was murdered in a brutal, savage death.
For Catholics, the mystery of the agony in the Garden has a very different meaning than for Mormons. As Catholics, the emphasis is on Christ’s line “Father, if thou wilt, remove this chalice from me: but yet not my will, but thine be done.” The struggle, the blood, was from the agony of the realization of what was about to happen to him. Being filled with grace, he knew his Father’s will for him, but he still struggled with this path he was about to make, more than any other struggle in His short life. But His entire life was the sacrifice, not just those drops of blood, or even his time on the cross. The Agony was the acceptance of God’s will.
The meaning of atonement, according to the Catholic Encyclopedia, is: “The word atonement, which is almost the only theological term of English origin, has a curious history. The verb “atone”, from the adverbial phrase “at one” (M.E. at oon), at first meant to reconcile, or make “at one”; from this it came to denote the action by which such reconciliation was effected, e.g. satisfaction for all offense or an injury. Hence, in Catholic theology, the Atonement is the Satisfaction of Christ, whereby God and the world are reconciled or made to be at one.” The Atonement, or reconciliation, started with the birth of Christ, and ended at his death. From the day he was born in a humble manger in extreme poverty until the day his side was pierced and blood and water gushed out, his life was a sacrifice. This cumulated with the Passion, which started with the prayers in Gethsemone, and ended with his death.
You are right about Mormons being defensive. Mormons are nothing if not excellent at apologetics. I remember that “us vs. them” feel, and how defensive I got when people just didn’t “get” Mormonism. It was kind of humilating, sometimes, being judged because of my religion. Other times, I am ashamed to admit, I’d get the attitude of “brushing the dust off of my feet” - Well, I tried to tell them, if they don’t accept it, I did my part. However, Mormons have a distinct disadvantage over Catholics (and I’m fully aware that Mormons could say the same thing about us): We have the blessing of knowing the Truth. But not only that, because of our Trinitarian Baptism, we have the blessing of Sanctifying grace, God dwelling fully and completely with us. Until I had that, I had no idea how much of a difference it is than the “gift of the Holy Ghost” that was given to me when I was baptized.
We Catholics also have the blessings of being able to receive the body, blood, soul and divinity of Jesus Christ every single day. When Christ said “This is my body”, we believe him. As the Cure of Ars, St. John Vianney used to say, “He’s really there.” He’s really in our tabernacles. When Christ said, “He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, abideth in me, and I in him.”, he was not being figurative - he was being very, very literal. This lesson became a reality at the Last Supper. I experienced the grace of conversion at the consecration during a wedding Mass of a friend - I cannot emphasize to you enough the power and the beauty of the Eucharist. I wasn’t even sure if there was a God at that point, being so disillusioned after leaving the LDS church. But i kept being drawn to Him and to the Catholic Church. Even being endowed in the Temple, and going through the ceremonies over and over for the dead, didn’t give me the spiritual peace that receiving Christ in the blessed sacrament every day gives to me, which I can only do because I have that gift of sanctifying grace.
Catholics don’t just believe in loving Christ, we believe in being truly united with Christ. We strive to live each day spiritually united to Christ, but for 15 minutes a day, we can be both spiritually and sacramentally united to the Word. Can you even imagine? The mystery is so great that I am sure that I will be dwelling on it and pondering it for the rest of my life and never understand. Four little words, “This is my body”, whispered over a piece of bread by a man with authority handed down from Christ himself, and that bread becomes a man, and that man is God. Most Christians, Mormons included, think they have to wait to see Christ and to be with Him. But He is here, right here, right now. We get to experience that love that is the Word, that love that loved us first. Right. Now.
He is really there.
We frequently get this from Mormons - the idea that “some members have speculated that…” when actually it was authoritatively taught by the General Authorities until fairly recently.
This is but a tiny sample of the documentation, in roughly chronological order.
1) Jesus was a polygamist, married to Mary Magdalene, Mary and Martha the sisters of Lazarus, and perhaps others. Also, Jesus had children.
“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.”
(President Brigham Young, Journal of Discourses, v2, p210)
“It will be borne in mind that once on a time, there was a marriage in Cana of Galilee; and on a careful reading of that transaction, it will be discovered that no less a person than Jesus Christ was married on that occasion. If he was never married, his intimacy with Mary and Martha [the sisters of Lazarus] and the other Mary also whom Jesus loved [Mary Magdelene], must have been highly unbecoming and improper to say the best of it.”
(Apostle Orson Hyde, Journal of Discourses 4:259)
One thing is certain, that there were several holy women that 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. If all the acts of Jesus were written, we no doubt should learn that these beloved women were his wives. (Apostle Orson Pratt, The Seer, p. 159)
“We say it was Jesus Christ who was married, to be brought into the relation whereby he could see his seed, before He was crucified. “Has he indeed passed by the nature of angels, and taken upon himself the seed of Abraham, to die without leaving a seed to bear his name on the earth?” No. But when the secret is fully out, the seed of the blessed shall be gathered in, in the last days; and he who has not the blood of Abraham flowing in his veins, who has not one particle of the Saviour’s in him, I am afraid is a stereotyped Gentile, who will be left out and not be gathered in the last days; for I tell you it is the chosen of God, the seed of the blessed, that shall be gathered.”
(Apostle Orson Hyde, Journal of Discourses 2:82)
2) Jesus and the apostles were persecuted and killed for being polygamists.
“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."
(Prophet Jedediah M. Grant, Journal of Discourses, Vol.1, p.346, August 7, 1853)
3) Some early Mormon leaders were direct descendants of Jesus.
Joseph Smith was the first to reveal this teaching, when he informed the plural wife of Apostle Judge Adams, that the Apostle “was a literal descendant of Jesus Christ.” (Oliver B. Huntington Journal, p. 259)
Prophet Lorenzo Snow, and his counselor George Q. Cannon, later declared this doctrine publicly:
President George Q. Cannon also spoke … he said, “There are those in this audience who are descendants of the old Twelve Apostles - and shall I say it, yes, descendants of the Saviour Himself. His seed is represented in this body of men.”
Following Pres. Cannon, President Snow arose and said that what Bro. Cannon had stated respecting the literal descendants among this company of the old apostles and the Saviour himself is true - the Saviour’s seed is represented in this body of men. (Journal of Pres. Rudger Clawson, pp. 374-375)
So the idea that Jesus was plurally married and had children was not the idle speculation of some members as the Mormons of today would have us believe. When the living prophet teaches something, the members are expected to accept it and believe it.
The members during these times undoubtedly accepted and believed the teachings of their living prophet and apostles that Jesus was a polygamist and had children. And these beliefs persist among many Mormons to this day.
In Mormonism the future is known; it is the past that is always changing.
Paul (formerly LDS, now happily Catholic)
You misgauge the nature of my response. My response is determined to place proper perspective on the teachings in that from an LDS point of view they are not salvation points of consideration. I’m sure you understand that there are doctrines which we believe are imperatives to be understood in order for salvation and then there are doctrines which can be added unto in the state of personal study and research which become part of one’s understanding’s but could even be ignored and not result in the loss of salvation. Though I, as an individual, believe in the material of the quotes you provided, it is because I have researched studied and pondered over the material and find it sufficiently consistent with the scriptural record to warrant my support. However I freely acknowledge that on the path to further understanding each of us is at a different level and that there is foundational material and then there is additional material that builds on the foundation. I do not think you need to believe as I do on this subject nor do I think your failure to do so is ultimately going to cost you your reward. That is not the case with all subjects but certainly upon this one…
When you put words in my mouth that ever so slightly twist my meaning and create a false sense of intent to push your less than charitable perceptions upon others, I consider that an act of deception. I did not deny the doctrine and in fact took a little extra time to explain the scriptural clues which might enable you to be objectively able to comprehend why an LDS person might accept the idea. I wasn’t trying to beat anyone up, nor was I avoiding the doctrine itself. I was simply illustrating through scripture why it works for us.
Instead, you jumped completely over the logic and scriptural precedence which was designed to build a bridge of reasonable exchange and went for the smack down of meat to confuse those who have no idea of why the doctrine could be sensible. If you wish to dialogue on the scriptural portions and intelligently discuss why they completely exclude the consideration that Christ was married then that would be a more reasonable approach.
I think if you embraced the concept of matters of meat and matters of milk as addressed by Paul in Corinthians and Hebrews you would understand why sometimes a principle can be understood correctly based upon a proper foundation and at other times we avoid the conversation because the foundation has to be reinforced in order to not offend an individual with material that exceeds their current level of understanding. I was working on the foundational level material as is appropriate for the audience.
Now, perhaps your knee jerk response will be that this is one of those LDS apologetic responses - if it is however, I am only defending Paul at this point – I haven’t even gotten out of the New Testament yet to have to defend the LDS Church. Point being what you have done is to illustrate a fine understanding of letter of the law but the spirit has escaped you. Paul is teaching you the spirit of the law. Again this is not some Mormon thing…it is your New Testament and my New Testament which should have some merit with you.
Such doctrines as Christ’s marriage are often unnecessarily and unwisely tossed out by religious antagonists who refuse to accept that even within their own theology the exact same debatable potential exists. If you attempt to ply your listeners with doctrines of meat, which you know is offensive to those who have no foundation upon which to measure them, are you not a deceiver? Would Paul approve? If you and I were to discuss the concept of Trinity, I can run you completely through the debates of Arius and Bishop Alexander of Alexandria and the influence of Athanasius, which all morphed to eventually become the doctrine of trinity. This path alone illustrates the evolution of the doctrine to its ultimate acceptance so that it became the basis for all major Christian religions except LDS. I can illustrate some of the “authoritatively taught” precedents from your Catholic past that cast dispersions on the concept of trinity. I can make my lists of references and quotes and posts and we can beat each other to death making a spectacle of ourselves refuting each other but the question remains – Is it the right thing to do?
From my perspective the only honest way I can do that is to first examine the source material that we all have in common – the scriptures. I would present the material and look at why Trinity actually can make sense if certain things are viewed a certain way. I would also illustrate how other areas in scripture cast shadows on the 3 in 1 interpretations that have prevailed. I would illustrate why when taken as a whole and all of the concepts are evaluated as a sum total of directional insight that I cannot hold with the doctrine myself. In other words I would engage you by building the foundation of why I think it makes sense to view it a certain way. I would not go for the jugular and illustrate the great contentions that surround the developments of this doctrine as I think that seeks to scare the uninformed and is a tactic of deception. The easy way out if you will…
The extension of the point being that I think you might actually understand all of these things. If you weren’t so bent on attacking your nemesis and the demons of your past, you could afford to really understand my points and actually hear the message. You could explore concepts of charity, and meekness etc and perhaps make Matthew 5 a part of you and not just some pithy good ideas when it works. You might inquire with civility, when you legitimately wanted to understand and exchange instead of browbeating and attempting to negate the essence of what I was attempting to say. To that ends:
2 Timothy 2:14-16
14 Of these things put them in remembrance, charging them before the Lord that they strive not about words to no profit, but to the subverting of the hearers.
15 Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.
16 But shun profane and vain babblings: for they will increase unto more ungodliness.
I feel that you are taking advantage of the bully pulpit to quiet the dissenting voices of your past and by missing my point you have leapt over my intent and now create a false witness to the “subverting of the hearers” with the rhetoric of the contenders. You can continue to do that but if you will be sensible we can probably engage in far more uplifting and beneficial engagements that serve to better represent the truths that both Catholics and Mormons can agree and which are right. Where we disagree we can show through scripture what prompts an informed response.
The Leaders of our organizations have recognized the necessity of working together and we have joined as Mormons and Catholics on many fronts that have effected accomplishment in the battle to overturn evil and sustain the teachings of Jesus Christ. In those things where we can sustain Christ let us be united in doing so. If we wish to discuss our differences, I can do that if we can agree to hear each other and not plot the destruction of the other by slipping in the agenda of Satan to encourage contention and divisiveness that “will increase unto more ungodliness.”
Again, show me in the scriptures or other reasonable resources, such as apocryphal, pseudipegraphal sources, Jewish texts, writings of the Apostalic Fathers, any reasonalbe source that illustrates why you believe it is inconceivable that Christ might have been married. No rhetoric, no apologetic traditions but build me a foundation that shows how the word of God might work to your advantage. Convert me if you will using the tools of conversion that you claim hold some precedence – the scriptures. Fill it in with other sources but take me through the milk of your reasoning to the meat after you have addressed the principles. I want to understand you clearly and not appear deaf to what you are saying. I have used the scriptures to show you why we can accept the concept of Christ being married as contained in your shock and awe response, now you show me from scripture and other reasonable sources why we cannot accept that Christ was married.
I may be out of range until Monday but I will look in if I can manage it ‘til then I look forward to your response…