Jesus May Have Been Married

[spycam1]

Covered in this holy book:

I don't think you'll like the answer.

I'll have to give it a try. Thanks for the tip.

 

[margodydek]

From an LDS perspective, I have to point out that Christ is obviously different from the rest of us. For example, he was God prior to his birth, something that is not available for the "exaltation path" that the rest of us take. So I don't think you can say that LDS theology REQUIRES Jesus to have been married. Of course you didn't say that, you just said it "makes sense", which I think is fine. I personally don't have an opinion on it.

Great post. I recall a General Authority once being asked this question (I forget who it was), but I recall the answer being along the lines of, "We do not teach that Christ was not married".

 

[GoJazz]

Great post. I recall a General Authority once being asked this question (I forget who it was), but I recall the answer being along the lines of, "We do not teach that Christ was not married".

We don't teach doesn't mean we don't believe or that Jesus wasn't married. It means we don't teach it. I could think of a number of reasons not to teach it. As posted previously, BY believed it, JFS believed it, General Authorities believe it.

 

[margodydek]

We don't teach doesn't mean we don't believe or that Jesus wasn't married. It means we don't teach it. I could think of a number of reasons not to teach it. As posted previously, BY believed it, JFS believed it, General Authorities believe it.

That was exactly my point. Not sure if you read my post correctly.

 

[Archie Moses]

Jesus was married? No crap, Sherlock.

 

[franklin]

I cannot think of a reason why a Catholic couple would ever feel guilty for having sex within marriage. If they are, they should speak about it with their spiritual directors or pastor.

No birth control, no calendar method, no pulling out, no sheep skin sheath. Aren't Catholics supposed to feel guilty for violating these commandments?


As a tangent, those of us into Mayanism believe in genital blood letting (right before getting drunk off our asses in the literal ***** consumption sense). Would Catholics consider this a type of bodily penance akin to Pope Paul II whipping himself?

 

[Stoked]

My take is this. Does Jesus being married or unmarried change who he was, what he taught or what he stood for? No, then ok.

 

[sirkickyass]

We don't teach doesn't mean we don't believe or that Jesus wasn't married. It means we don't teach it. I could think of a number of reasons not to teach it. As posted previously, BY believed it, JFS believed it, General Authorities believe it.

So the church believes it but doesn't actually say it's part of the doctrine. In other words, it's lay doctrine. That almost uniquely mormon set of doctrines that's entirely unofficial so it can be denied in the instances where it's embarassing.

You know, since Brigham Young and other General Authorities believed all kinds of other racist things too, and those things were much more officially codified into church policy. But those totally don't count for some reason.

IMHO, the church would be much better served if it cracked down on this kind of lay doctrine.

 

[Former Member]

No birth control, no calendar method, no pulling out, no sheep skin sheath. Aren't Catholics supposed to feel guilty for violating these commandments?


As a tangent, those of us into Mayanism believe in genital blood letting (right before getting drunk off our asses in the literal ***** consumption sense). Would Catholics consider this a type of bodily penance akin to Pope Paul II whipping himself?

1) There is Natural Family Planning which is similar to "the calender method," but I've heard it is more advanced. I honestly have never sat through a NFP class yet, so I do not know. I honestly have no idea what "sheep skin sheath" is, and I don't want to google it on the seminary computer

2) Bodily penance like the pope whipping himself is a form of mortification. You should think of it as a more extreme form of fasting. This kind of relates because NFP requires the married couple to abstain from sex when the wife is fertile. However, I would like to emphasize the word extreme. I personally don't know any Catholics that practice that type of mortification, and even if I did, I doubt they would brag about it. Pope John Paul II didn't brag about it while he was alive. Mayanism, on the other hand... well I got no idea. Sorry.

 

[colton]

So the church believes it but doesn't actually say it's part of the doctrine.

It's too strong to say that "the church believes it". Some in the church may believe it, but I don't even think this particular item rises to the level of folk doctrine like you were talking about.

 

[franklin]

1) There is Natural Family Planning which is similar to "the calender method," but I've heard it is more advanced. I honestly have never sat through a NFP class yet, so I do not know. I honestly have no idea what "sheep skin sheath" is, and I don't want to google it on the seminary computer

Thanks again. I guess I've always heard an incorrect version of the doctrine.

 

[One Brow]

Funny that a fragment the size of a business card holds something controversial that is found nowhere in the bible.
Not saying it isn't true, just very ironic, if it is.

You do realize the early church made an active effort to hnunt down and destroy documents that portrayed Jesus differently from their preferred narrative, and that such documents would never have been selected for the Bible, right?