Divine Example: Marriage Among Deity

[Stone holm]

We are a Church which believes in following Christ as the Great Exemplar, Who in turn follows Heavenly Father as the Exemplar. We are also dedicated to the importance of family and married life to our eternal prospects. There are implications to all this which are for the most part. Left unstated but have for many decades been the the understandings of many Mormons, yet surprisingly you will trigger opposition if articulated. The important ones are that Mary mother of Christ was married to Heavenly Father, and that Christ married someone, probably one of the Mary's and Martha during His Mortal ministry. Yet, members and occasionally the Church will balk at these implications. Why is that?

Please refrain from discussing SSM in responding to this topic.

[Buzzard]

It's been my experience that most (not all) LDS agree that Jesus was married, though we don't make a big deal of it. Mary the mother of Christ being married to God the Father is a little bit more contreversial. If you agree with BY, then yes, probably. But since the details of the immaculate conception are not covered in scripture, it's one of those things we will find out in the ressurection.

[SeekingUnderstanding]

It's been my experience that most (not all) LDS agree that Jesus was married, though we don't make a big deal of it. Mary the mother of Christ being married to God the Father is a little bit more contreversial. If you agree with BY, then yes, probably. But since the details of the immaculate conception are not covered in scripture, it's one of those things we will find out in the ressurection.

Just to be clear, the immaculate conception refers to Mary's conception not Jesus'.

The important ones are that Mary mother of Christ was married to Heavenly Father,

What scriptural or doctrinal support do you have for this statement? Just Brigham Young's speculative statements?

[BlueDreams]

I don't know to many LDS who find it terribly objectionable that Christ was married. It's simply speculative...there's not a lot of evidence so why bother guessing at it.

As for Mary married to HF.....I don't know any (living) LDS who believes that. I sure don't. She's married to Joseph. End note. If BY thought so, I have no reason to follow suit. I balk (reject, would be a better word) at the idea because, again she's married to Joseph. I like to believe he didn't get the raw end of the eternal deal. Plus it's purely speculative...there's no real evidence indicated for it. Plus it's unnecessary. Plus it's based on what people find socially acceptable (God doesn't balk from messy families, we do) and following a line of thought such as: To procreate, we're commanded to be married. God must have married Mary because He procreated. There's an inferred assumption that He wouldn't break His own commands.....except He does all the time. His laws aren't immutable, He is. What He says, goes...even if it contradicts other commands and laws usually in force. He broke the laws of nature innumerable times. He insisted Nephi kill a man, despite general commands not to. I'm sure pulling off the virgin conception of Christ wasn't exactly difficult.

With luv,

BD

Edited May 31, 2013 by BlueDreams

[CV75]

Yet, members and occasionally the Church will balk at these implications. Why is that?

I can see members balking out of differences in opinion, attitudes, reasoning, and understanding, but how has the Church (I assume you mean the leaders by way of talks or the curriculum) officially balked at these ideas?

[Questing Beast]

Brigham Young also taught that in this life he had no wives and no children, but that in the next life, if he was found worthy he would have his own wives and children. BY contradicted BY....

[BCSpace]

Marriage..."is good practice for life as a god."

Clement of Alexandria in Wagner, After The Apostles, 180

Clement insists that marriage and procreation are an intrinsic and positive part of God's plan for the human race. He frequently cites Genesis 1:28 ("Increase and multiply") and regards human procreation as an act of co-creation with God: "In this way the human being becomes the image of God, by cooperating in the creation of another human being"...Indeed, Clement is even capable of regarding marriage as, in some respects, superior to celibacy. The celibate who is concerned only for his own salvation is "in most respects untried." By contrast, the married man who must devote himself to the administration of a household is a more faithful reflection of God's own providential care.

David G. Hunter, Marriage in the Early Church, 1992, 15, cf. Clement of Alexandria, Stromata 7:12:70; Instructor 2:10:83

[SamIam]

What scriptural or doctrinal support do you have for this statement? Just Brigham Young's speculative statements?

We don't support doctrine with his speculative statements - just his prophetic ones.

[SamIam]

I don't know to many LDS who find it terribly objectionable that Christ was married. It's simply speculative...there's not a lot of evidence so why bother guessing at it.

As for Mary married to HF.....I don't know any (living) LDS who believes that. I sure don't. She's married to Joseph. End note. If BY thought so, I have no reason to follow suit. I balk (reject, would be a better word) at the idea because, again she's married to Joseph. I like to believe he didn't get the raw end of the eternal deal. Plus it's purely speculative...there's no real evidence indicated for it. Plus it's unnecessary. Plus it's based on what people find socially acceptable (God doesn't balk from messy families, we do) and following a line of thought such as: To procreate, we're commanded to be married. God must have married Mary because He procreated. There's an inferred assumption that He wouldn't break His own commands.....except He does all the time. His laws aren't immutable, He is. What He says, goes...even if it contradicts other commands and laws usually in force. He broke the laws of nature innumerable times. He insisted Nephi kill a man, despite general commands not to. I'm sure pulling off the virgin conception of Christ wasn't exactly difficult.

With luv,

BD

It never ceases to amaze me that we define a concept of God as a being beyond our comprehension and then we reduce him to a being we think we comprehend. The errors in the above statement are too many to address at this time.

[SamIam]

Brigham Young also taught that in this life he had no wives and no children, but that in the next life, if he was found worthy he would have his own wives and children. BY contradicted BY....

CFR please.

Edited May 31, 2013 by SamIam

[Ahab]

Why is that?

We usually balk because we don't agree with something. For example, like I'm balking at your post. Balk balk. Bye bye now.

[ERayR]

I want to make it clear at the outset of this post that at this time I do not take a position either way on this subject. There is just not enough evidence to support either position.

As for Mary married to HF.....I don't know any (living) LDS who believes that. I sure don't.

You should enlarge your circle of acquaintances.

She's married to Joseph. End note. If BY thought so, I have no reason to follow suit. I balk (reject, would be a better word) at the idea because, again she's married to Joseph. I like to believe he didn't get the raw end of the eternal deal. Plus it's purely speculative...there's no real evidence indicated for it.

To point out a flaw in your reasoning: Joseph and Mary were married by Jewish law in effect at the time. I do not think it was an eternal marriage but you are right in that there is no real evidence either way.

Plus it's unnecessary. Plus it's based on what people find socially acceptable (God doesn't balk from messy families, we do) and following a line of thought such as: To procreate, we're commanded to be married. God must have married Mary because He procreated. There's an inferred assumption that He wouldn't break His own commands.....except He does all the time. His laws aren't immutable, He is. What He says, goes...even if it contradicts other commands and laws usually in force. He broke the laws of nature innumerable times. He insisted Nephi kill a man, despite general commands not to. I'm sure pulling off the virgin conception of Christ wasn't exactly difficult.

With luv,

BD

On what evidence do you base your assumption that it is unnecessary? Your assumption that it is unnecessary is also an inferred assumption.

From purely a curious nature why does it bother you so much to think that Mary may have been married to God?

[ERayR]

It never ceases to amaze me that we define a concept of God as a being beyond our comprehension and then we reduce him to a being we think we comprehend.

It is rather odd especially in light of John 17:3

And this is life eternal, that they might know you the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom you have sent

[tagriffy]

It never ceases to amaze me that we define a concept of God as a being beyond our comprehension and then we reduce him to a being we think we comprehend. The errors in the above statement are too many to address at this time.

The problem here is that Mormonism defines God as an exalted man. In other words, God is not "wholly other" in Mormonism. Though certainly more advanced than we are, God is not utterly incomprehensible. That means we can, tentatively, use human reasoning to understand him.

[ERayR]

The problem here is that Mormonism defines God as an exalted man. In other words, God is not "wholly other" in Mormonism. Though certainly more advanced than we are, God is not utterly incomprehensible. That means we can, tentatively, use human reasoning to understand him.

It helps to not try and mystify everything.

[Stone holm]

The problem here is that Mormonism defines God as an exalted man. In other words, God is not "wholly other" in Mormonism. Though certainly more advanced than we are, God is not utterly incomprehensible. That means we can, tentatively, use human reasoning to understand him.

I don't see that as a particular problem. God is to Mormons an exalted man, and allow His superior knowledge of the physical laws allows Him to manipulate the laws of nature so that it appears that he is violating them, that isn't actually the case. As to God laying down spiritual laws and then ignoring or violating them, that is something I believe foreign to Mormonism -- we believe God is bound by His own laws because otherwise He would not be just, and in Ether it indicates that if God were not just then He would cease to be God. So, the impliction is strong that if God impregnated an unwed woman, He would marry her first. If the law is that you must not avoid marriage if you want to be Exalted, then Jesus would, as an exemplar, have married. It was my understanding that the Church recently backed away from the implication by saying there was no doctrine as to Jesus having been married. However, I just remember someone saying that in Priesthood -- so please do not CFR me on that. There is a sermon in the JD to the effect that by implication Jesus would have by implication have married. I also vaguely remember reading comments to the effect that He had children who were "hidden away." While I can understand non-Mormons balking at the idea of Heavenly Father marrying Mary, I for the life of me do not understand the balking about it from Mormons. I even ran it past my ultimate Earthly authority to see what she said, and her response was "Why would a Mormon disagree with the idea of Mary having married Heavenly Father?" -- I said, have absolutely no clue. And then she went on, without a blink to explain it almost word for word as BY would have explained it including that it was Heavenly Father not the Holy Ghost who impregnated Mary.

[Garden Girl]

I want to make it clear at the outset of this post that at this time I do not take a position either way on this subject. There is just not enough evidence to support either position.

You should enlarge your circle of acquaintances.

From purely a curious nature why does it bother you so much to think that Mary may have been married to God?

Hello ERayE...

I agree with BD... I balk at the idea that Mary was married to HF... I don't care who said what. I think there were occasions when BY leaned "on his own understanding" and that his "opinion" was given too much weight. We do not have revelation and/or scripture that tells us definitively how Christ's conception took place. My personal opinion is that the process is different than we mere humans understand, i.e., "My ways are not your ways..." But we are promised this knowledge (D&C 101:32-34 Yea, verily I say unto you, in that day when the Lord shall come, he shall reveal all things -- Things which have passed, and hidden things which no man knew.... Things most precious...) In my opinion, the process of Christ's conception is one of those "most precious" things... along with "how the earth was created"... If these things are yet to be revealed in that day when the Lord shall come, it means we do not have a full knowledge now... so I look forward to that day when we will all be given these precious truths.

from the beach on the most beautiful spring day... sunny... just a pleasant breeze... azure sky.... GG

Edited May 31, 2013 by Garden Girl

[Stone holm]

Hello ERayE...

I agree with BD... I balk at the idea that Mary was married to HF... I don't care who said what. I think there were occasions when BY leaned "on his own understanding" and that his "opinion" was given too much weight. We do not have revelation and/or scripture that tells us definitively how Christ's conception took place. My personal opinion is that the process is different than we mere humans understand, i.e., "My ways are not your ways..." But we are promised this knowledge (D&C 101:32-34 Yea, verily I say unto you, in that day when the Lord shall come, he shall reveal all things -- Things which have passed, and hidden things which no man knew.... Things most precious...) In my opinion, the process of Christ's conception is one of those "most precious" things... along with "how the earth was created"... If these things are yet to be revealed in that day when the Lord shall come, it means we do not have a full knowledge now... so I look forward to that day when we will all be given these precious truths.

from the beach on the most beautiful spring day... sunny... just a pleasant breeze... azure sky.... GG

Well yes, but why would we defy the logical conclusion of our doctrine for a vague reference to future secrets to be revealed. Is this some aversion to the idea that Heavenly Father was involved in anything even remotely associated with sex? That seems very odd in a religion which places so much stress on male and female mating, and that mating can only occur within the confines of marriage. Don't you feel just a twinge of cognitive dissonance here with any other explanation?

[ERayR]

Hello ERayE...

I agree with BD... I balk at the idea that Mary was married to HF... I don't care who said what. I think there were occasions when BY leaned "on his own understanding" and that his "opinion" was given too much weight. We do not have revelation and/or scripture that tells us definitively how Christ's conception took place. My personal opinion is that the process is different than we mere humans understand, i.e., "My ways are not your ways..." But we are promised this knowledge (D&C 101:32-34 Yea, verily I say unto you, in that day when the Lord shall come, he shall reveal all things -- Things which have passed, and hidden things which no man knew.... Things most precious...) In my opinion, the process of Christ's conception is one of those "most precious" things... along with "how the earth was created"... If these things are yet to be revealed in that day when the Lord shall come, it means we do not have a full knowledge now... so I look forward to that day when we will all be given these precious truths.

from the beach on the most beautiful spring day... sunny... just a pleasant breeze... azure sky.... GG

It is ok to "balk" at it if you want. Note my very first line.

Wish I was on the beach too.

[SamIam]

It is rather odd especially in light of John 17:3

And this is life eternal, that they might know you the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom you have sent

I take your point as completely acceptable and a suitable ammendment to what I am trying to say. My point would be better understood in terms of this verse:

Mosiah 4:9

9 Believe in God; believe that he is, and that he created all things, both in heaven and in earth; believe that he has all wisdom, and all power, both in heaven and in earth; believe that man doth not comprehend all the things which the Lord can comprehend.

My point is that regardless of whether we can know God it is not the same as to comprehend God. In light of the statement to which I was responding, to boldly state that God breaks his own laws, that he can't be married to Mary, that Joseph gets a "raw deal" that God can circumvent laws of chastity at a whim, that he is contradictory, and breaches laws of nature, that his command to Nephi to slay Laban was a breach of his own laws and that Mary was a parthenogenic parent means to define him as a changing whimsical force that cannot be depended on to act consistently. Thus one can never exercise faith in such a God.

The only reasons to believe such a mistaken notion is first to not have adequate knowledge in the available resources of what has been stated about these subjects by his representatives and second to not believe scriptural references to his integrity and unchangeableness.

[tagriffy]

I don't see that as a particular problem. God is to Mormons an exalted man, and allow His superior knowledge of the physical laws allows Him to manipulate the laws of nature so that it appears that he is violating them, that isn't actually the case. As to God laying down spiritual laws and then ignoring or violating them, that is something I believe foreign to Mormonism -- we believe God is bound by His own laws because otherwise He would not be just, and in Ether it indicates that if God were not just then He would cease to be God. So, the impliction is strong that if God impregnated an unwed woman, He would marry her first. If the law is that you must not avoid marriage if you want to be Exalted, then Jesus would, as an exemplar, have married. It was my understanding that the Church recently backed away from the implication by saying there was no doctrine as to Jesus having been married. However, I just remember someone saying that in Priesthood -- so please do not CFR me on that. There is a sermon in the JD to the effect that by implication Jesus would have by implication have married. I also vaguely remember reading comments to the effect that He had children who were "hidden away." While I can understand non-Mormons balking at the idea of Heavenly Father marrying Mary, I for the life of me do not understand the balking about it from Mormons. I even ran it past my ultimate Earthly authority to see what she said, and her response was "Why would a Mormon disagree with the idea of Mary having married Heavenly Father?" -- I said, have absolutely no clue. And then she went on, without a blink to explain it almost word for word as BY would have explained it including that it was Heavenly Father not the Holy Ghost who impregnated Mary.

I agree that God as an exalted man poses no problem for the idea he was married to Mary or that he impregnated her as Brigham Young explained it. I was addressing a different issue.

[Ahab]

I agree that God as an exalted man poses no problem for the idea he was married to Mary or that he impregnated her as Brigham Young explained it. I was addressing a different issue.

If he had married Mary then he would have been married to one of his daughters. I know we marry our sisters but to marry our children is just a little too weird. I don't see how anyone could really believe our Father would have married any of his children.

[tagriffy]

Hello ERayE...

I agree with BD... I balk at the idea that Mary was married to HF... I don't care who said what. I think there were occasions when BY leaned "on his own understanding" and that his "opinion" was given too much weight. We do not have revelation and/or scripture that tells us definitively how Christ's conception took place. My personal opinion is that the process is different than we mere humans understand, i.e., "My ways are not your ways..." But we are promised this knowledge (D&C 101:32-34 Yea, verily I say unto you, in that day when the Lord shall come, he shall reveal all things -- Things which have passed, and hidden things which no man knew.... Things most precious...) In my opinion, the process of Christ's conception is one of those "most precious" things... along with "how the earth was created"... If these things are yet to be revealed in that day when the Lord shall come, it means we do not have a full knowledge now... so I look forward to that day when we will all be given these precious truths.

from the beach on the most beautiful spring day... sunny... just a pleasant breeze... azure sky.... GG

I originally balked on the concept because it seemed to contradict the Bible. I don't remember exactly what Brigham Young claimed about his teaching (i.e., whether revelation or interpretation), but I have to admit it makes sense. It is consistent with established Mormon doctrine. I don't really care one way or the other now.

[tagriffy]

If he had married Mary then he would have been married to one of his daughters. I know we marry our sisters but to marry our children is just a little too weird. I don't see how anyone could really believe our Father would have married any of his children.

Because we are already marrying our siblings, I don't see it as that much of a stretch to believe HF would marry one of his children. In other words, if it is not weird to marry siblings, it isn't weird to marry offspring.

Besides, aren't we forgetting we had independent and eternal existence even before HF got to us?

[Ahab]

Because we are already marrying our siblings, I don't see it as that much of a stretch to believe HF would marry one of his children. In other words, if it is not weird to marry siblings, it isn't weird to marry offspring.

Uh. Like, WOW! You really don't see the difference?!? Just because one thing isn't weird doesn't mean another thing isn't weird.

I have a feeling a can't do very well to explain this to you, though. It would in fact be weird if he did even if you don't think so.

Besides, aren't we forgetting we had independent and eternal existence even before HF got to us?

That's a mistaken notion. We have always existed because we have always been a part of our parents before us. We didn't come from out of nowhere. Sounds like you need to understand the story of the birds and the bees.