If we were sent here to learn and to follow Heavenly Father’s plan, and He sent us His Son to guide us I would think we had to follow His footsteps as well and if Christ was given to us as an example and part of our “counsel” has been to go forth and multiply does that not mean that Christ also had a wife and child/ren? Or can you be perfected without going through that process? Is that two different trains of thoughts?
Following in His footsteps
Published by
Sally
I am a 50-year-old mom of 5 and Nana of 12 grandkids. I am the Family History Consultant as of beginning of Dec 2006. Not a good day I have to say. I have been a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints for almost 28 years. I have served in just about every position available except for the Young Women organisation. My favorite thing to do in life is spend time with my grandchildren View all posts by Sally
I can’t find any revealed doctrine on this question, so I don’t know. But I presume that either in this life or after it, Jesus obtained at least one eternal spouse. It seems inconsistent with everything we’re taught about the process of becoming like God to think otherwise.
I see no reason why Jesus could not have been married and fathered children. The absence of any biblical support for this not prove that it did not happen.
I am forced to agree with you guys. I see no reason to beleive that he was not married, or had children. It wouldn’t suprise me in the least if it were Mary Magdeline.
It’s always an interesting thought anyway.
If I remember right, Talmage sort of hints at the Magdelene theory in Jesus the Christ. Funny thing is, most of the Christian world seems to have this tradition that she was a harlot. Any clue where that idea came from?
I think He was married to Mary Magdalene. And whether she was a prostitute or not before that, it makes no difference as the Atonement and repentance make her pure anyway. In spite of what some people seem to think (like James E Talmage for one)that once a sinner the blot is always there. So she may well have been, but that wouldn’t matter to the Saviour once she repented.
Mary, I wasn’t commenting on whether she was or wasn’t a harlot. I’m just wondering where the idea came from, because, like Elder Talmage, I can find no support whatsoever for that idea in the scriptures.
It’s like other European Christian traditions that have found their way into art and music: Mary rode a donkey, the wise men were kings and were three in number, Joseph was rather old when he married Mary, angels were “singing” to the shepherds, and so on. Can’t find one iota of scriptural support for them, so I wonder where they came from.
I also don’t know where Elder Talmage espoused the idea of “once a sinner the blot is always there.” Did you read that in one of his books somewhere?
No no, I know you weren’t. Your mention of it just put it into my head is all, and so I wanted to mention it.
No he didn’t necessarily espouse that, but in Jesus the Christ he makes it very clear that Jesus would never have married someone who at one point, was in any way immoral. But since He is the only one who lived a perfect life, it stands to reason that whoever he married would have made SOME mistakes, small or big. However, Elder Talmage isn’t the only one who sees things this way. When I was in Young Women’s we were given these white, spotless “pin cushions” and shown how sin puts holes in our lives and though the sin (the pin) can be taken away throuhg the Atonement, the hole is still there. It’s only humans who continue to see the past sins and wrongs, the Lord doesn’t see them once they are gone. So that visual aid was incorrect, Of course, being a susceptible YW, I fell for it hook, line and sinker.
Well Mary could have ridden a donkey, but yikes, she was in labour. Walking would have been way more useful and less uncomfortable. The wise men also didn’t show up until Jesus was approximately 2 years old.
I’ve heard of the “nail in the board” visual aid designed to teach the same heresy as the pin through the cushion. I’m glad more people seem to have clued in on the fact that Christ’s atonement was infinite.
To be kind, maybe people are just trying to teach that you can’t get back the past misery caused by sin, or the time lost, even when sin is utterly erased.
I guess I’ll have to read Talmage again, because I don’t remember his saying that the Lord would never marry a woman who had sinned and then repented. It’s been a long time.
i’ll check it too. Actually he may have said it elsewhere. But i am pretty sure it is in Jesus the Christ. I remember the quote pretty vividly because I was shocked anyone who professes to believe in the Atonement would say taht.
That’s true, they may have been using it to show you can’t get the pasts back. But still…
It’s been a while since I read Jesus the Christ, but as I recall there was a slight alusion to Mary being married to Jesus though it was faint.
I think that the fact that Mary was with Jesus at some of the key points in his ministry is one clue. Also, I heard that her washing his feet was part of it.
Also, the fact that she was the first person he appeard to after he had risen.
As far has her being a Harlot, that is not supported in scripture.
Mark 16:9 Now when Jesus was arisen early the first day of the week, he appeared first to Mary Magdalene, out of whom he had cast seven devils.
Luke 8: 2 And certain women, which had been healed of evil spirits and infirmities, Mary called Magdalene, out of whom went seven devils,
I have always believe Jesus was married and did have children.
Just for fun, has anybody here read “The DaVinci Code?”. Very interesting speculations about the wife of Christ in there.
Haven’t yet read The da Vinci Code. Lately I’ve been told that its plot is all based on the idea that Christianity is a big cover-up. If it’s true that that’s what the story is about, I think I’m rapidly losing interest.
More specifically, Catholicism.
Exactly..I DID read the DaVinci code and I did NOT get the impression that it indicated Christianity in general(aside from Caholocism) to be a cover up.
I didn’t get that impression either. Actually I didn’t find the book as interesting as most seem to find it.
I swear that when I was on my mission in 1966 I read in Jesus the Christ (Talmage) that one of the footnotes said that Jesus was married to Mary M.
The Jesus the Christ does not have this footnote any more. Does anyone have an OLDER copy of Jesus the Christ?
Ed:
Does anyone have an OLDER copy of Jesus the Christ?
Do you have the page number?
I used to have an older copy (don’t have it anymore) and it didn’t actually say He was married to Mary Magdalene but that He more than likely was, due to the evidence (He appeared to her first, etc) but I am sure that was opinion. I don’t think we really know one way or another.
The copy of Jesus the Christ that I just finished searching was exactly the same edition printed at least as far back as 1922, made from the same printing plates. I can find no note of any kind saying that Christ was married to Mary Magdalene, or even that he “more than likely” was married to Mary Magdalene.
Pages 263-265 discuss the fact (or view) that although traditions identify an unnamed repentant harlot as Mary Magdalene, there is no scriptural foundation for that tradition.
Pages 678-683 discuss Mary Magdalene’s close friendship with the Lord and her experiences with Christ following his resurrection.
Those are the only refernces to Mary Magdalene I have been able to find in Jesus the Christ by James E. Talmage.