Monday, May 28, 2012

Was Jesus Married? Is It Mormon Doctrine That He Was?

I have absolutely no problem with the idea that Jesus was married, but it's not something Mormons are "supposed to believe" - since it's not taught anywhere as scripture or "official doctrine". It makes sense to me, and I personally believe he was, but it certainly isn't official.

Perhaps the most humorous reason I heard for the idea that He had to be married is that the scriptures say clearly that He took upon Himself ALL of our afflictions - and He was a man.   Needless to say, I'm not going to encourage my wife to read this post. 

(By the way and for the record, part of why I like to believe Jesus was married is that the justifications for why he couldn't have been are just so lame.)


ji said...

I tend to think he wasn't married -- no reasons or justifications, except my own feelings about his mission.

But certainly it isn't a matter of our doctrine.

Gwennaƫlle said...

I asked jews about it, you can't be called a rabbi if you're not married.
Plus he obeyed ALL the commandments.
Enough for me.

As far as who was his wife I could not care less.

Frank Pellett said...

For me, this has come under the heading of things like "what color were His eyes?" and "how exactly was He conceived?"
There are many aspects of his life we have almost no details on, but have been extrapolated upon, that too often get used to seperate us rather than bring us together.
I'm glad when these can be shared, but not when people use them as bludgeons for their particular point of view on what others should or should not be doing. Some people believe that Jesus was married polygynously as well.

Paul said...

I don't quite get this comment from your OP: " it's not something Mormons are "supposed to believe" - since it's not taught anywhere as scripture or "official doctrine"."

I guess I've assumed that things that are not generally taught are not generally taught, but it does not preclude my receiving personal revelation on the matter.

It might be better to say that we ought not to teach this principle, rather than we ought not believe it.

That said, the OP does get me a thinking. Thanks.

ji said...

I like "supposed to believe" approach -- in the sense that we aren't expected or required to believe it as an article of faith and indicator of being a good or whole Latter-day Saint.

I don't like the "we ought not to teach this principle" approach, because it suggests some gnosticism and that it really is indicator of being a whole Latter-day Saint.

The original poster did not suggest an "ought not believe it" approach -- indeed, he perfectly allowed for believing it -- he just said it's something we're not "supposed [expected] to believe."

It isn't a matter of our common doctrine. It isn't a truth that all whole Mormons will eventually embrace as they progress and obtain personal revelation. It isn't a secret doctrine (whisper and wink) among whole Latter-day Saints. I prefer to keep it that way. When we speak of Jesus, I prefer to rejoice in what he said and did as recorded in the scriptures.

To me, and all my personal revelation for whatever it's worth, it is perfectly possible for Jesus to have done everything he did without being married. Thus, because of the absolute silence of the scriptures and its non-necessary-ness, I tend to think he wasn't married, but I add that it certainly isn't a matter of our doctrine.

wage slave said...

What would she be called?
Mrs Jesus.
Sister Jesus.
Sister Christ.
Mrs C.
Sister C.

If there was no Mrs C, he might have met a nice girl after the resurrection. In that case, we will have do temple work for her and Jesus. Who gets to do that work?

Papa D said...

Sorry, I'm traveling cross-country moving my family, so I haven't been able to keep up on the comments:

ji, I like citing feelings more than trying to prove it one way or another. We only know about one of the disciples' marriage - and we only know about that because his mother-in-law got sick. Therefore, I think it's impossible to prove authoritatively one way or the other.

Gwen, I know lots of people who see it that way - for those exact reasons.

Frank, Amen! As for Jesus being married polygynously - I don't believe that at all.

Paul, as ji said so well, I only meant that it's not something Mormons are expected to believe in any official way. Sorry for the confusion.

wage slave, thanks! I appreciated the laugh.