Married to Christ?

[Ahab]

I know it's scriptural, meaning some prophets of God have said it, but prophets have also said that Christ becomes our Father or the Father of those who are adopted by him through the covenant relationship we form with him at our baptism.  So how do you square in your mind that we, as members of his Church, are married to him as well as adopted by him?  Both equate to becoming joint heirs with him of all that he has, which is also all that our Father has, with all of us sharing everything together, but one idea in my mind equates us to being his children and the other idea equates us to being his wife (wife because he is a man and the spouse of a man is typically considered to be feminine, which is a bit odd for me since I am a man and I have a difficult time to considering myself to be the spouse of a man).

Anyway,  just wondering and hoping to hear what some insightful people on this board have to say about this idea.

[ksfisher]

Just now, Ahab said:

I know it's scriptural, meaning some prophets of God have said it, but prophets have also said that Christ becomes our Father or the Father of those who are adopted by him through the covenant relationship we form with him at our baptism.  So how do you square in your mind that we, as members of his Church, are married to him as well as adopted by him?  Both equate to becoming joint heirs with him of all that he has, which is also all that our Father has, with all of us sharing everything together, but one idea in my mind equates us to being his children and the other idea equates us to being his wife (wife because he is a man and the spouse of a man is typically considered to be feminine, which is a bit odd for me since I am a man and I have a difficult time to considering myself to be the spouse of a man).

Anyway,  just wondering and hoping to hear what some insightful people on this board have to say about this idea.

I've also understood the language in the scriptures about Christ being the bridegroom to be symbolic, specifically to emphasize the relationship between Christ and His covenant people.

[Ahab]

3 minutes ago, ksfisher said:

I've also understood the language in the scriptures about Christ being the bridegroom to be symbolic, specifically to emphasize the relationship between Christ and His covenant people.

Yes, he is masculine and the Church is his spouse/bride, so as members of the Church wed are both... oh, I'm getting it now.   The Church as an organization is in the feminine role and  when we join with his Church we are born again as children through the feminine, which is how he becomes our Father through adoption.  We as individuals are not the Church, if I'm getting this right, but we are born again through the Church or with the Church's help just as any child is born through it's Mother.

I'm going to keep thinking about this some more in hopes of getting some more ideas about this.  And please chime in if you have anything more to say about this.

[nuclearfuels]

Traditionally, the husbands were the bread-winners / hunters and the wives raised the kids, made and maintained the home, etc.

Christ overcame death and hell for us because He loves us.

The husband/wife analogy is a way of teaching people how the Savior is our provider, author and finisher of our faith, alpha and omega, etc. 

By comparison, our obedience is valuable but it's not like overcoming death and hell and sin, etc.

[RevTestament]

2 hours ago, Ahab said:

Yes, he is masculine and the Church is his spouse/bride, so as members of the Church wed are both... oh, I'm getting it now.   The Church as an organization is in the feminine role and  when we join with his Church we are born again as children through the feminine, which is how he becomes our Father through adoption.  We as individuals are not the Church, if I'm getting this right, but we are born again through the Church or with the Church's help just as any child is born through it's Mother.

I'm going to keep thinking about this some more in hopes of getting some more ideas about this.  And please chime in if you have anything more to say about this.

I think it has more to do with comparing the likeness of a covenant. The marriage covenant is something almost palpable to the people which allows them to envision the closeness of the covenant with Christ. It is not marriage in the sense of a sexual relationship obviously. To break that covenant is likened to divorcing your wife - hence Yeshua's denouncement of divorce except where the wife breaks the covenant. Since we don't keep the covenant with the Father though in our fallen state, we make it with our forgiving elder brother, Yeshua.

Edited June 5, 2018 by RevTestament

[Robert F. Smith]

1 hour ago, Ahab said:

................................. in my mind equates us to being his children and the other idea equates us to being his wife (wife because he is a man and the spouse of a man is typically considered to be feminine, which is a bit odd for me since I am a man and I have a difficult time to considering myself to be the spouse of a man).

........................................

Does this mean that there is Scriptural warrant for same sex marriage?  Likewise, does the marriage of all Roman Catholic nuns to Christ mean that Christ is practicing polygamy?  Or does this simply mean that we are taking our metaphors too far?

[Duncan]

If I am married to Christ then we got rubbish wedding gifts i.e. my lamp is starting to go wonky, my toaster burns the bread, the cutlery is dinged here and there..........maybe for our golden anniversary we'll get new stuff

[Ahab]

4 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Does this mean that there is Scriptural warrant for same sex marriage?  Likewise, does the marriage of all Roman Catholic nuns to Christ mean that Christ is practicing polygamy?  Or does this simply mean that we are taking our metaphors too far?

No to all 3, just not correctly understood until I got the correct understanding.  As I said a little later, after getting some more insight on this issue, the Church as an organization is in the feminine role and all members who become part of the Church become children of Christ as well as children of the Mother Church which is the bride and the wife of Christ by being adopted by Christ and his Church with Christ in the role of our Father and the Church in the role of our Mother wherein all of us thus adopted become joint-heirs of all that our Father and Mother have just as he and "she" has all that our Father has.  I was just a bit confused in thought for a while thinking that as individuals we are married to Christ, but we are not as individuals, only through the Church as our Mother.

[Robert F. Smith]

27 minutes ago, Ahab said:

No to all 3, just not correctly understood until I got the correct understanding.  As I said a little later, after getting some more insight on this issue, the Church as an organization is in the feminine role and all members who become part of the Church become children of Christ as well as children of the Mother Church which is the bride and the wife of Christ by being adopted by Christ and his Church with Christ in the role of our Father and the Church in the role of our Mother wherein all of us thus adopted become joint-heirs of all that our Father and Mother have just as he and "she" has all that our Father has.  I was just a bit confused in thought for a while thinking that as individuals we are married to Christ, but we are not as individuals, only through the Church as our Mother.

Well then, how is the Church the Body of Christ?  And at the same time the communion wafer is the Body of Christ (Corpus Christi).  Isn't that meant literally?  In the LDS Church it is merely an emblem of the Body of Christ, but much more than that in Roman Catholic, Anglican, and Orthodox theology.

Edited June 5, 2018 by Robert F. Smith

[mrmarklin]

Only nuns.

[The Nehor]

Look, it may seem weird but the Supreme Court made their ruling and we just have to live with it.

[Paiute]

3 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Well then, how is the Church the Body of Christ?  And at the same time the communion wafer is the Body of Christ (Corpus Christi).  Isn't that meant literally?  In the LDS Church it is merely an emblem of the Body of Christ, but much more than that in Roman Catholic, Anglican, and Orthodox theology.

What if a bakery refused an order for communion wafers.

[Robert F. Smith]

2 minutes ago, Paiute said:

What if a bakery refused an order for communion wafers.

Yes, and what if Sacrament was passed in an LDS ward using unleavened communion wafers?  Would that be heresy?

[Paiute]

30 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Yes, and what if Sacrament was passed in an LDS ward using unleavened communion wafers?  Would that be heresy?

Are they normally leavened?

[The Nehor]

I was in a ward where a member baked a loaf of bread every Sunday morning. The body of Christ tasted much better in that ward.

[Robert F. Smith]

35 minutes ago, Paiute said:

Are they normally leavened?

I don't think it matters, and is not a requirement, but I have never seen unleavened bread used in LDS Sacrament.  Just ordinary store-bought bread normally, although likely baked fresh in pioneer times.

Edited June 5, 2018 by Robert F. Smith

[Ahab]

15 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Well then, how is the Church the Body of Christ?  And at the same time the communion wafer is the Body of Christ (Corpus Christi).  Isn't that meant literally?  In the LDS Church it is merely an emblem of the Body of Christ, but much more than that in Roman Catholic, Anglican, and Orthodox theology.

I understand the Church to be the body of Christ in the same way that my wife is mine, her body and all that she is.  And I am hers, too, body and all.  Even though we bicker sometimes and don't always agree, we are one and belong to each other. We are united in purpose even though we often need to manage some details. 

I understand the communion bread (not water) is the body of Christ in the sense that when we consume it we are making Christ a part of us, agreeing to be as he is in the way that he wants us to be. We literally become Christ, as he is, even though we remain separate and individual persons.  We take his name as our name as we speak in his name and do what he wants us to do as his agents.

My point, though, which I arrived at through some insightful ideas which occurred to me later after I started the thread was that we as individuals are not married to Christ.  The Church is, as an organization or body of believers, but I now see us as children of that organization and not the organization, itself.  The Church is our Mother, and our Father is Jesus Christ, and we join with the Church and accept it as our Mother by being born again by being baptized in water and the fire of the Holy Spirit as we accept Jesus Christ as our Father, in addition to already being children of the Father of Jesus who we commonly refer to as our Father in heaven.

Anyway, that's that I think.  Some insightful ideas from you would also be appreciated.

[theplains]

23 hours ago, Ahab said:

I know it's scriptural, meaning some prophets of God have said it, but prophets have also said that Christ becomes our Father or the Father of those who are adopted by him through the covenant relationship we form with him at our baptism.  So how do you square in your mind that we, as members of his Church, are married to him as well as adopted by him?  Both equate to becoming joint heirs with him of all that he has, which is also all that our Father has, with all of us sharing everything together, but one idea in my mind equates us to being his children and the other idea equates us to being his wife (wife because he is a man and the spouse of a man is typically considered to be feminine, which is a bit odd for me since I am a man and I have a difficult time to considering myself to be the spouse of a man).

Romans 8:14-17 says, "For as many as are led by the Spirit of God, they are the sons of God. ... And if children, then
heirs; heirs of God, and joint-heirs with Christ; if so be that we suffer with him, that we may be also glorified together."

An LDS church manual considers only exalted persons as these joint-heirs (aka sons and daughters of God). 
Those who are not led by the Spirit are not the sons of God.

“… [The righteous who have died] shall rise again to dwell in everlasting burnings in
immortal glory, not to sorrow, suffer, or die any more, but they shall be heirs of
God and joint heirs with Jesus Christ. What is it? To inherit the same power, the
same glory and the same exaltation, until you arrive at the station of a god, and
ascend the throne of eternal power, the same as those who have gone before.”

“They who obtain a glorious resurrection from the dead, are exalted far above 
principalities, powers, thrones, dominions and angels, and are expressly declared to 
be heirs of God and joint heirs with Jesus Christ, all having eternal power [see 
Romans 8:17].” 

What is your view about this?

Thanks,
Jim

[Ahab]

15 minutes ago, theplains said:

Romans 8:14-17 says, "For as many as are led by the Spirit of God, they are the sons of God. ... And if children, then
heirs; heirs of God, and joint-heirs with Christ; if so be that we suffer with him, that we may be also glorified together."

An LDS church manual considers only exalted persons as these joint-heirs (aka sons and daughters of God). 
Those who are not led by the Spirit are not the sons of God.

“… [The righteous who have died] shall rise again to dwell in everlasting burnings in
immortal glory, not to sorrow, suffer, or die any more, but they shall be heirs of
God and joint heirs with Jesus Christ. What is it? To inherit the same power, the
same glory and the same exaltation, until you arrive at the station of a god, and
ascend the throne of eternal power, the same as those who have gone before.”

“They who obtain a glorious resurrection from the dead, are exalted far above 
principalities, powers, thrones, dominions and angels, and are expressly declared to 
be heirs of God and joint heirs with Jesus Christ, all having eternal power [see 
Romans 8:17].” 

What is your view about this?

Thanks,
Jim

I agree that members of our Lord's church are now only in the process of "becoming" joint heirs with Christ, not that we are there yet, but will become such if we remain true and faithful to the Lord and his Church (our Mother and wife of the Lord in this process with the help we have through the gift of the Holy Spirit).

The "not the sons of God" part is referring to not being sons of Jesus Christ,. who is also God, because they have not been born again through the Church and thus not adopted as children of Jesus Christ.  All of us are already children of the God person we refer to as our Father in heaven, even though Jesus Christ is the only begotten son of God in mortal flesh.  Adam was not mortally begotten by our Father in heaven, which is why he doesn't count as a begotten son of God in mortal flesh. 

[theplains]

5 hours ago, Ahab said:

All of us are already children of the God person we refer to as our Father in heaven, even though Jesus Christ is the only begotten son of God in mortal flesh.  Adam was not mortally begotten by our Father in heaven, which is why he doesn't count as a begotten son of God in mortal flesh. 

How do you define begotten?

Jim

[The Nehor]

5 hours ago, Ahab said:

I agree that members of our Lord's church are now only in the process of "becoming" joint heirs with Christ, not that we are there yet, but will become such if we remain true and faithful to the Lord and his Church (our Mother and wife of the Lord in this process with the help we have through the gift of the Holy Spirit).

We are not separate and distinct enough from the Church such that it can be our mother.

[Ahab]

13 hours ago, theplains said:

How do you define begotten?

Jim

birth from a Mothers womb after a woman's egg (usually but not always one of her own eggs) has been fertilized by some man's sperm

I'm aware there are several ways for that to happen, see this link here https://www.parents.com/getting-pregnant/infertility/treatments/guide-to-fertility-methods/ about how  much we know now, but the point is that both a man and a woman are required to reproduce themselves as another person of our same species.

Who knows, maybe someday a Mother's womb may no longer be a requirement.

[Ahab]

13 hours ago, The Nehor said:

We are not separate and distinct enough from the Church such that it can be our mother.

I don't see how you can logically support that statement.  A Mother and her children do have a lot in common, but both are separate and distinct entities, in my view.

[Guest]

On June 4, 2018 at 5:42 PM, Ahab said:

I know it's scriptural, meaning some prophets of God have said it, but prophets have also said that Christ becomes our Father or the Father of those who are adopted by him through the covenant relationship we form with him at our baptism.  So how do you square in your mind that we, as members of his Church, are married to him as well as adopted by him?  Both equate to becoming joint heirs with him of all that he has, which is also all that our Father has, with all of us sharing everything together, but one idea in my mind equates us to being his children and the other idea equates us to being his wife (wife because he is a man and the spouse of a man is typically considered to be feminine, which is a bit odd for me since I am a man and I have a difficult time to considering myself to be the spouse of a man).

Anyway,  just wondering and hoping to hear what some insightful people on this board have to say about this idea.

Mosiah 5:7, which is the winding down of the wonderful sermon of King Benjamin in the Book of Mormon speaks of how Jesus Christ becomes the Father, by adoption. The other scriptures you speak of in John 17th chapter speak of becoming "one with God", as the term "one" is used by Paul concerning marriage as an example. Also as you noted we do "become joint heirs", but I don't recall us being "married to Christ", you may be mixing metaphors. It is "The Church" that is referred to as the "bride of Christ", he being the "bridegroom". However, unless I missed something, the idea of persons be "married to Jesus Christ" is a Catholic teaching related to nuns.     

[The Nehor]

6 hours ago, Bill "Papa" Lee said:

Mosiah 5:7, which is the winding down of the wonderful sermon of King Benjamin in the Book of Mormon speaks of how Jesus Christ becomes the Father, by adoption. The other scriptures you speak of in John 17th chapter speak of becoming "one with God", as the term "one" is used by Paul concerning marriage as an example. Also as you noted we do "become joint heirs", but I don't recall us being "married to Christ", you may be mixing metaphors. It is "The Church" that is referred to as the "bride of Christ", he being the "bridegroom". However, unless I missed something, the idea of persons be "married to Jesus Christ" is a Catholic teaching related to nuns.     

The Catholic Church has mostly moved away from the idea of nuns being the bride of Jesus. It was metaphor and it weird if taken as literal.

God does use the idea of romance as a metaphor for how he wins us over. The Old Testament prophets used it quite a bit. We are often the debased unfaithful wife running off to dalliances with our false god lovers. That metaphor is a little shocking but I think finding it shocking is good and healthy. Looking at my temptations to idolatry as a kind of adultery makes them more repugnant and hopefully easier to resist.