The Messiah: A Married Polygamist

[Zakuska]

Psalms 45

1 Mine heart will utter forth a good matter: I will entreat in my works of the king: my tongue is as the pen of a swift writer.

2 Thou art [c]fairer than the children of men: grace is poured in thy lips, because God hath blessed thee forever.

3 Gird thy sword upon thy thigh, O most mighty, to wit, thy worship and thy glory:

4 And prosper with thy glory: [d]ride upon the word of truth and of meekness and of righteousness: so thy right hand shall teach thee terrible things.

5 Thine arrows are sharp to pierce the heart of the King’s enemies: therefore the people shall fall under thee.

6 Thy [e]throne, O God, is forever and ever: the scepter of thy kingdom, is a scepter of righteousness.

7 Thou lovest righteousness, and hatest wickedness, because God, even thy God, hath [f]anointed thee with the oil of gladness above thy fellows.

8 All thy garments smell of myrrh and aloes, and cassia, when thou comest out of the ivory palaces[g]where they have made thee glad.

9 King’s daughters were among thine honorable wives: upon thy right hand did stand the [h]Queen in a vesture of gold of Ophir.

10 [i]Hearken, O daughter, and consider, and incline thine ear: forget also thine own people and thy father’s house.

11 So shall the King have pleasure in thy beauty: for he is thy Lord, and reverence thou him.

12 And the [j]daughter of [k]Tyre with the rich of the people, shall do homage before thy face with presents.

13 The King’s daughter is all glorious [l]within: her clothing is of broidered gold.

14 She shall be brought unto the King in raiment of needlework: the virgins that follow after her, and her companions shall be brought unto thee.

15 With joy and gladness shall they be brought, and shall enter into the king’s palace.

16 Instead of thy fathers shall thy [m]children be: thou shalt make them princes [n]through all the earth.

17 I will make thy [o]Name to be remembered through all generations: therefore shall the people give thanks unto thee, world without end

The 45 Psalm depicts the Messiah as a Married Polygamist.

https://archive.org/stream/seereditedbyorso01unse/seereditedbyorso01unse_djvu.txt

We know this is speaking about the Messiah because Paul quotes this psalm and tells us as much.

Apprently Jesus was married, or will be one day!

What do you think... was the Apostle Orson Pratt right?

Edited December 8, 2015 by Zakuska

[JAHS]

Here's what Orson Pratt said in the Seer:

"Next let us inquire whether there are any intimations in the Scriptures concerning the wives of Jesus. One thing is certain: that there were several holy women who greatly loved Jesus, such as Mary and Martha, her sister, and Mary Magdalene; 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. Indeed, the Psalmist David prophesies in particular concerning the wives of the Son of God. 'Kings' daughters were among thine honorable wives; upon thy right hand did stand the Queen in a vesture of gold of Ophir." (Apostle Orson Pratt in The Seer, page 159).

Edited December 8, 2015 by JAHS

[Zakuska]

He also says that the KJV interpreters mistranslate that verse as "women" instead of "wives". Apparently he's right because the Geneva Bible of 1599 does indeed interpet it as "wives".

https://books.google.com/books?id=ikM9AAAAYAAJ&pg=PA160&lpg=PA160&dq=king+james+translators+were+not+willing+that+this+passage+should+have+a+literal+translation&source=bl&ots=BXCrE4b09G&sig=k3YGaxSZTnr0TQijNFsYHI_an9Y&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwih6fvg1MvJAhWnyoMKHQRqASkQ6AEIGzAA#v=onepage&q=king%20james%20translators%20were%20not%20willing%20that%20this%20passage%20should%20have%20a%20literal%20translation&f=false

Edited December 8, 2015 by Zakuska

[VideoGameJunkie]

If Jesus had 3 wives, the question then becomes did he have children with them while on earth and where are the descendants today?

[VideoGameJunkie]

I've been told by someone but I can't remember who that the reception where Jesus turned water into wine was at his own wedding. I can't CFR because I don't remember who it was that told me that. Just putting it out there for discussion.

[Avatar4321]

35 minutes ago, VideoGameJunkie said:

If Jesus had 3 wives, the question then becomes did he have children with them while on earth and where are the descendants today?

It was a common teaching that He had children. The Church (meaning the Catholic Church) made sure to strictly suppress that teaching after Charlemagne claimed his descent from Jesus as a way to legitimize his rule. They didn't want wars being fought by tyrants all claiming to be a descendant of Jesus Christ to asset authority.

I think it wasn't an unreasonable decision at the time.

[Zakuska]

Another chapter depicting a Polygamist God...

Jeremiah 3

 1 They say, If a man put away his wife, and she go from him, and become another man's, shall he return unto her again? shall not that land be greatly polluted? but thou hast played the harlot with many lovers; yet return again to me, saith the LORD.1  2 Lift up thine eyes unto the high places, and see where thou hast not been lien with. In the ways hast thou sat for them, as the Arabian in the wilderness; and thou hast polluted the land with thy whoredoms and with thy wickedness. 3 Therefore the showers have been withholden, and there hath been no latter rain; and thou hadst a whore's forehead, thou refusedst to be ashamed. 4 Wilt thou not from this time cry unto me, My father, thou art the guide of my youth? 5 Will he reserve his anger for ever? will he keep it to the end? Behold, thou hast spoken and done evil things as thou couldest. 
Judah is worse than Israel 
 6 The LORD said also unto me in the days of Josiah the king, Hast thou seen that which backsliding Israel hath done? she is gone up upon every high mountain and under every green tree, and there hath played the harlot. 7 And I said after she had done all these things, Turn thou unto me. But she returned not. And her treacherous sister Judah saw it. 8 And I saw, when for all the causes whereby backsliding Israel committed adultery I had put her away, and given her a bill of divorce; yet her treacherous sister Judah feared not, but went and played the harlot also. 9 And it came to pass through the lightness of her whoredom, that she defiled the land, and committed adultery with stones and with stocks.2  10 And yet for all this her treacherous sister Judah hath not turned unto me with her whole heart, but feignedly, saith the LORD.3  11 And the LORD said unto me, The backsliding Israel hath justified herself more than treacherous Judah. 
The promises of the gospel to the penitent 
 12 Go and proclaim these words toward the north, and say, Return, thou backsliding Israel, saith the LORD; and I will not cause mine anger to fall upon you: for I am merciful, saith the LORD, and I will not keep anger for ever. 13 Only acknowledge thine iniquity, that thou hast transgressed against the LORD thy God, and hast scattered thy ways to the strangers under every green tree, and ye have not obeyed my voice, saith the LORD. 14 Turn, O backsliding children, saith the LORD; for I am married unto you: and I will take you one of a city, and two of a family, and I will bring you to Zion: 15 And I will give you pastors according to mine heart, which shall feed you with knowledge and understanding. 16 And it shall come to pass, when ye be multiplied and increased in the land, in those days, saith the LORD, they shall say no more, The ark of the covenant of the LORD: neither shall it come to mind: neither shall they remember it; neither shall they visit it; neither shall that be done any more.4 5  17 At that time they shall call Jerusalem the throne of the LORD; and all the nations shall be gathered unto it, to the name of the LORD, to Jerusalem: neither shall they walk any more after the imagination of their evil heart.6  18 In those days the house of Judah shall walk with the house of Israel, and they shall come together out of the land of the north to the land that I have given for an inheritance unto your fathers.7 8  19 But I said, How shall I put thee among the children, and give thee a pleasant land, a goodly heritage of the hosts of nations? and I said, Thou shalt call me, My father; and shalt not turn away from me.9 10 11  
Israel reproved, and called by God, makes a solemn confession of their sins 
 20 Surely as a wife treacherously departeth from her husband, so have ye dealt treacherously with me, O house of Israel, saith the LORD.12  21 A voice was heard upon the high places, weeping and supplications of the children of Israel: for they have perverted their way, and they have forgotten the LORD their God. 22 Return, ye backsliding children, and I will heal your backslidings. Behold, we come unto thee; for thou art the LORD our God. 23 Truly in vain is salvation hoped for from the hills, and from the multitude of mountains: truly in the LORD our God is the salvation of Israel. 24 For shame hath devoured the labour of our fathers from our youth; their flocks and their herds, their sons and their daughters. 25 We lie down in our shame, and our confusion covereth us: for we have sinned against the LORD our God, we and our fathers, from our youth even unto this day, and have not obeyed the voice of the LORD our God.

Intresting Note: God also drops the Hebrew equivalent of an F bomb in this chapter. 

 

 

[Zakuska]

9 hours ago, Avatar4321 said:

It was a common teaching that He had children. The Church (meaning the Catholic Church) made sure to strictly suppress that teaching after Charlemagne claimed his descent from Jesus as a way to legitimize his rule. They didn't want wars being fought by tyrants all claiming to be a descendant of Jesus Christ to asset authority.

I think it wasn't an unreasonable decision at the time.

Intresting to note that Joseph Smith traces his Geneology through Charlemagne.  Perhaps the Legends of Messiah ben David and Messiah ben Joseph and the Blood line of Mary are true after all. Where's Dan Brown when you need him! 

More about Joseph Smith's Charlemagne Blood ties...

http://bycommonconsent.com/2008/08/27/147-generations/

Edited December 8, 2015 by Zakuska

[volgadon]

You keep asserting this, but where is the Hebrew equivalent of the f-bomb in the text?

[katherine the great]

It should probably be considered that it was quite standard for a king in that time and place to have many wives--often princesses from neighboring kingdoms.  So it stands to reason that the imagery associated with any great king from David's perspective would have had many wives.  Oh, and all people of European descent are probably related to Charlemagne.  That includes you.

[Zakuska]

13 hours ago, volgadon said:

You keep asserting this, but where is the Hebrew equivalent of the f-bomb in the text?

Jeremiah 3:2

Look up to the bare heights, and see!
Where have you not been ravished?

Look up the word translated commonly as "ravished".

Quote

 

H7693 shagal - 

to copulate with.

[a primitive root]
KJV: lie with, ravish.

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=9&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwjYga2o9szJAhVW2WMKHWEnBooQFghMMAg&url=http%3A%2F%2Fstudybible.info%2Fstrongs%2FH7693&usg=AFQjCNH7kMcOCvB8bfb9l1SWm2ZVvuxOkw&sig2=NyCms-H6Vwj6QlA9Wk6YnQ

Literal translation would be "F---ed" or "screwed"

Its probably where the British word "shag", "shagged", "shagging", "Shagadelic" comes from baby.

 

Quote

Shagal is the Hebrew equivalent of the vulgar term in English (the one that begins with f)

 

https://books.google.com/books?id=rKEAWJaQJAMC&pg=PA46&lpg=PA46&dq=Shagal+equivalent+in+english&source=bl&ots=aetkMxOb6o&sig=VssZ27WzFlR4vD2qYXqVdwwIrbU&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwj-k56388zJAhUE6GMKHeYsDY8Q6AEIHTAA#v=onepage&q=Shagal%20equivalent%20in%20english&f=false

Quote

In the original Hebrew, the verb that is translated as "ravished" is actually much more course. Pronounced shagal the Hebrew verb for "vigorous consensual sex" is noted as obscene in the well-respected Brown-Driver-Briggs Hebrerw English Lexicon of the Bible.

https://books.google.com/books?id=3-2565duvzoC&pg=PA58&lpg=PA58&dq=god+drops+an+f+bomb+jeremiah&source=bl&ots=d7vlBFDATN&sig=dCnkJr5zuGoA1aqYenedin6m1h8&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwi-zPqw8czJAhUG5WMKHftSAokQ6AEIHTAA#v=onepage&q=god%20drops%20an%20f%20bomb%20jeremiah&f=false

Edited December 9, 2015 by Zakuska

[JAHS]

12 hours ago, VideoGameJunkie said:

I've been told by someone but I can't remember who that the reception where Jesus turned water into wine was at his own wedding. I can't CFR because I don't remember who it was that told me that. Just putting it out there for discussion.

The fact that Mary(His mother) was worried about the supply of wine and that she presented the problem to Jesus, suggests that Mary was the hostess of the wedding and that Jesus was the groom. Traditionally, the mother of the groom was the wedding hostess and it was the groom's responsibility to provide the wine. (John 2:1-10)

[Calm]

3 hours ago, Zakuska said:

Intresting to note that Joseph Smith traces his Geneology through Charlemagne.

The vast majority of Europeans do.

Edited December 8, 2015 by Calm

[mtomm]

Best. Thread. Ever. 

[Calm]

1 hour ago, JAHS said:

The fact that Mary(His mother) was worried about the supply of wine and that she presented the problem to Jesus, suggests that Mary was the hostess of the wedding and that Jesus was the groom. Traditionally, the mother of the groom was the wedding hostess and it was the groom's responsibility to provide the wine. (John 2:1-10)

Why was Jesus invited (called) to his own wedding in the same manner of his disciples?  Why does Jesus dismiss the need to do anything if he was the groom and it was his responsibility?

[mapman]

If Jesus has any living descendants then statistically speaking most people in the world would be his descendants today.

[Zakuska]

Volgadon,

Yet another Vulgarity from the Pulpit. This time from Paul.

Philip 3:8

“Yea doubtless, and I count all things but loss for the excellency of the knowledge of Christ Jesus my Lord, for whom I have suffered the loss of all things and count them but dung, that I may win Christ.” 

Paul uses the Greek equivalent of BS right there.

Maybe... J. Golden Kimball was on to something!

Edited December 8, 2015 by Zakuska

[volgadon]

59 minutes ago, Zakuska said:

Jeremiah 3:2

Look up to the bare heights, and see!
Where have you not been ravished?

Look up the word translated commonly as "ravished".

Literal translatsion would be "F---ed" or "screwed"

Its probably where the British word "shag", "shagged", "shagging", "Shagadelic" comes from baby.

 

 

https://books.google.com/books?id=rKEAWJaQJAMC&pg=PA46&lpg=PA46&dq=Shagal+equivalent+in+english&source=bl&ots=aetkMxOb6o&sig=VssZ27WzFlR4vD2qYXqVdwwIrbU&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwj-k56388zJAhUE6GMKHeYsDY8Q6AEIHTAA#v=onepage&q=Shagal%20equivalent%20in%20english&f=false

https://books.google.com/books?id=3-2565duvzoC&pg=PA58&lpg=PA58&dq=god+drops+an+f+bomb+jeremiah&source=bl&ots=d7vlBFDATN&sig=dCnkJr5zuGoA1aqYenedin6m1h8&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwi-zPqw8czJAhUG5WMKHftSAokQ6AEIHTAA#v=onepage&q=god%20drops%20an%20f%20bomb%20jeremiah&f=false

I read the chapter in Hebrew before asking you to substantiate the assertion. Your second source is not terribly accurate or reliable. ShGL and its derivatives are a non-euphemistic term for copulation. Nothing whatsoever to with sexual vigour or consent. One can see it as earthy, coarse, or blunt, but there is no indication that ShGL was equivalent to f**k or sh*g in the response they trigger in English speakers. Never mind that suggesting a Hebrew etymology for sh*g is worthy of as much serious consideration as a Greek one for kimono.

[JAHS]

16 minutes ago, Calm said:

Why was Jesus invited (called) to his own wedding in the same manner of his disciples?  Why does Jesus dismiss the need to do anything if he was the groom and it was his responsibility?

Yes. It being the wedding of Jesus is speculation at best.

[volgadon]

now, a further word on the BDB terming it obscene. This has to do with masoretic substitution of the euphemism "to lie," as they were uncomfortable with connecting vulgarity or anything else which would lessen his majesty to God, especially in a public, religious setting. It is quite the leap to claim ShGL as a Hebrew F-bomb.

[Zakuska]

7 hours ago, volgadon said:

now, a further word on the BDB terming it obscene. This has to do with masoretic substitution of the euphemism "to lie," as they were uncomfortable with connecting vulgarity or anything else which would lessen his majesty to God, especially in a public, religious setting. It is quite the leap to claim ShGL as a Hebrew F-bomb.

Not a leap at all Volg.  The whole book of Jeremiah is pretty vulgar. In Chapter 3 God described his 2 wives, Judah and Israel as nympho prostitute whores who 'F*ed' everything they layed  their eyes on.  However, probably one of the most vulgar verses describing this similar event comes from the the Prophet Ezekiel who has God describing the sexual organs of the men with whom Israel and Judah lusted after and copulated with.

Ezekiel 23:19-20

You can't get much more vulgar and sexually explicit than that! And that from the mouth of God. 

Theres actually quite a lot of Vulgarity and naught words in the Bible that our translators keep from our modern ears.

The C word is used in... Judges 5: 30

http://marginalia.lareviewofbooks.org/sterilizing-the-bible/

Edited December 9, 2015 by Zakuska

[Zakuska]

And the more we examine that sacred instrument, framed by the wisdom of our illustrious fathers, the more we are compelled to believe that an invisible power controlled, dictated, and guided them in laying the foundation of liberty and freedom upon this great Western Hemisphere. To this land the Mahomedan — the Hindoo — the Chinese can emigrate and each bring with him his score of wives and his hundred children, 
and the glorious Constitution of our country will not interfere with his 
domestic relations. Under the broad banner of the Constitution he is protected in all his family associations : none have a right to tare any of his wives or his children from him. So likewise, under the broad folds of the Constitution, the Legislative Assem- 
bly of the Territory of Utah have the right to pass laws, regulating their 
matrimonial relations, and protecting each of their citizens in the right of 
marrying, one or many wives, as the case may be. If Congress should 
repeal those laws, they could not do so on the ground of their being unconstitutional. And even, if Congress should repeal them, there still 
would be no law in Utah, prohibiting the free exercise of that religious 
right : neither do the citizens of Utah feel disposed to pass such an unconstitutional act which would infringe upon the most sacred rights of conscience. 

Tradition and custom have great influence over nations. Long established customs, whether right or wrong, become sacred in the estimation of Mankind. Those nations 
who have been accustomed from time immemorial to the practice of what is called Polygamy, would consider a law abolishing it, as the very height of injustice and oppression ; the very idea of being limited to the one wife system, would be considered not only oppressive and unjust, but absolutely absurd and ridiculous ; it 
would be considered an innovation upon the long established usages, customs, and laws of numerous and powerful nations — an innovation of the most dangerous character, cal- 
culated to destroy the most sacred rights and privileges of family associations — to upset the very foundations of individual rights, rendered dear and sacred by being handed down to them from the most remote ages of antiquity. 

On the other hand, the European nations who have been for centuries restricted by law to the one wife theory, would consider it a shocking innovation upon the customs of their 
fathers to abolish their restrictive laws, and to give freedom and liberty, 
according to the plurality system. It is custom, then, in a great degree, that forms the conscience of nations and individuals in regard to the marriage relationships. Custom causes four-fifths of the population of the globe to decide that Polygamy, as it is called, is a good, and not an evil practice ; custom causes the balance, or the remaining fifth, to decide in opposition to the great majority. 

Those individuals who have strength of mind sufficient to divest themselves entirely from the influence of custom, and examine the doctrine of a Plurality of Wives under the 
light of reason and Revelation, will be forced to the conclusion that it is a doctrine of Divine origin ; that it was embraced and practised under the Divine sanction, by the most righteous men who ever lived on the earth ; holy Prophets and Patriarchs 
who were inspired by the Holy Ghost — who were enwrapt in the visions of the Almighty — who conversed with holy angels — who saw God face to face, and talked with Him 
as a man talks with his friend — were "Polygamists," that is, they had 
many wives — raised up many children by them — and were never re- 
proved, by the Holy Ghost, nor by Angels, nor by the Almighty for be- 
lieving in and practicing such a doctrine ; on the contrary, each one of 
these ''Polygamists" received, by revelation, promises and blessings 
for himself, for his wives, and for his numerous children, horn unto him
\ the gospel covenant were still obliged by his numerous wives. Moreover, ' to obey ; 
and until we can find some the Lord, Himself, gave revelation to i law of God abolishing and prohibit- different wives, belonging to the same j ing a plurality of wives, we are comman, revealing to them the great j pelled to believe it a Divine institu- 
blessings which should rest upon their posterity ; angels also were 
sent to comfort and bless them ; and in no instance do we find them re- 
proved for having joined themselves in marriage to a " Polygamist," In- 
deed, the Lord, Himself, gave laws, tion ; and we are, furthermore, com- 
pelled to believe, that if this institution be entered into now, under the 
same principles which governed the holy Prophets and Patriarchs, that 
God will approbate it now as much as He did then ; and that the per- 

not to prohibit "Polygamy," but j sons who do thus practice it conscien- 
showing His will in relation to the I tiously and sincerely, are just a» hon- 
children raised up by the different I orable in the sight of God, as those 
wives of the same man; and further- who have but one wife. And that 
more, the Lord, Himself, actually offi- which is honorable before God should 
ciated in giving David all the wives of be honorable before men; and no 
Saul ; this occurred, too, when David one should be despised when he acts 

already had several wives which he had previously taken : therefore, as 
the Lord did actually give into David's own bosom all the wives of 
Saul, He must not only have sanctioned '.' Polygamy," but established 
and instituted it upon a sure fbundation by giving the wives, Himself, 
the same as he gave Eve to Adam. Therefore, those who are completely 
divested from the influence of Na in all good conscience upon any principle of doctrine ; neither should there be laws in any of these States or Territories to compel any indi- 
vidual to act in violation to the dictates of his own conscience : but 
every one should be left in all matters of religion to his own choice, 
and thus become accountable to God,and not to his fellow man. 

Edited December 8, 2015 by Zakuska

[Teancum]

15 hours ago, VideoGameJunkie said:

If Jesus had 3 wives, the question then becomes did he have children with them while on earth and where are the descendants today?

 

 

Have you not seen The Da Vinci Code or read the book. 

[Zakuska]

Things that make you go Hmmmm...

Why is Christ seated at the head of the Table in the "Grooms" chair?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marriage_at_Cana#/media/File:Jacopo_Tintoretto_-_Marriage_at_Cana_-_WGA22470.jpg

Edited December 8, 2015 by Zakuska

[MDalby]

When Mary of old came to the sepulchre on the first day of the week, instead of finding Jesus she saw two angels in white, ?And they say unto her, Woman, why weepest thou? She said unto them, Because they have taken away my Lord, or husband, and I know not where they have laid him. And when she had thus said, she turned herself back, and saw Jesus standing, and knew not that it was Jesus. Jesus saith unto her, Woman, why weepest thou? whom seekest thou? She, supposing him to be the gardener, saith unto him, Sir, if thou have borne him hence, tell me where thou hast laid him, and I will take him away. Jesus saith unto her, Mary. She turned herself, and saith unto him, Rabboni; which is to say, Master.? Is there not here manifested the affections of a wife. These words speak the kindred ties and sympathies that are common to that relation of husband and wife. Where will you find a family so nearly allied by the ties of common religion? Well, you say, that appears rather plausible, but I want a little more evidence, I want you to find where it says the Savior was actually married.
(Orson Hyde, Journal of Discourses, 2:81)