Posted on October 20, 2019 by TAW

Was Jesus Married?

Thanks to the movie The Da Vinci Code the idea of Jesus’ marriage is more popular than ever. But it is also getting some push back from supporters of the traditional view that Jesus lived a celibate life. For example, Mark Brumley, president of Ignatius Press, wrote in This Rock,

Absence of evidence is not, as we have said, evidence of absence. But neither is it evidence of evidence. The assertion that Jesus was married puts the burden of proof on those making the claim. Those who argue for a married Jesus simply haven’t met that burden. What evidence we have—even when considered apart from the Church’s Tradition—all points in the other direction.[1]

**Yes, Jesus’ marriage is not official LDS doctrine**

The LDS Church does not officially teach that Jesus was married. Charles W. Penrrose, an LDS Apostle and member of the First Presidency, wrote in 1912,

We do not know anything about Jesus Christ being married. The Church has no authoritative declaration on the subject.[2]

In fact the FairMormon blog says this about the LDS Church’s position on Jesus being married,

Do Mormons believe Jesus Christ was married?…The easy answer is that no, Mormons don’t officially believe that Jesus was married. In fact, there is no official Church doctrine on this issue.

But then?

Even so, it is true this belief is perfectly consistent with Mormon beliefs as a whole. And in contrast to most of our Christian cousins the belief that Jesus was married is held by many, if not a majority, of Mormons.

Today we don’t hear anything from church leaders about Jesus being married. But in the 19th century LDS leaders were very vocal about teaching their belief that Jesus was married. Apostle Orson Pratt wrote in his book The Seer (1853) that

One thing is certain, that there were several holy women that greatly loved Jesus — such as Mary, and Martha her sister, and Mary Magdalene; and Jesus greatly loved them, and associated with them much; and when He arose from the dead, instead of 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 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 (p.159).

There are several more examples of 19th century church leaders who say Jesus was married. (A quick internet search will bring them up.)

The situation is like this. If you look at LDS beliefs as a whole they seem to point toward Jesus being married. LDS teachings make it optional. But nevertheless, our beliefs favor it.

Mormon beliefs: Was Jesus married?

But which beliefs point to this?

We see ourselves (and Jesus) as spirit children of our Heavenly Father. During our premortal life Heavenly Father gathered all of us together and proposed a plan. An earth would be created where we would live a mortal life and grow and develop (see The Premortal Life). Marriage is part of this plan. In fact, marriage is required to obtain the highest heaven. The Doctrine and Covenants says this about temple marriage.

In the celestial glory there are three heavens or degrees; And in order to obtain the highest, a man must enter into this order of the priesthood [meaning the new and everlasting covenant of marriage]; And if he does not, he cannot obtain it. (D&C 131:1-3; brackets original)

The scriptures also teach that, “no one can reject this covenant [of marriage] and be permitted to enter into my glory” (D&C 132:4; brackets mine).

Jesus is our elder brother (Who is Jesus, To a Mormon?) who volunteered to be the savior of mankind. But earth life was also part of his progression, and that would logically include marriage. My brother also pointed out that Jesus was baptized to fulfill all righteousness, “then wouldn’t he be married to complete that law also.”

I will add that even though the idea that Jesus was married during his mortal life is not required the idea that he must eventually be sealed to a wife for time and all eternity is. After all, we belief that Heavenly Father has a wife (Heavenly Mother). So if Jesus isn’t now married then eventually he must get married.

As a result, for most Mormons the idea that Jesus might have been married is very uncontroversial.

Evidence for Jesus’ marriage

Mark Brumley is right. The passages in the New Testament that might suggest Jesus was married can easily be interpreted in another way. But here are some of the typical arguments for Jesus’ marriage.

In the Gospels Jesus is identified as a Rabbi (Matt. 26:49, Mark 10:51, John 20:16). A Rabbi would be expected to marry.
The marriage in Cana where Jesus turned water to wine might have been Jesus’ own marriage (John 2:1-11). (I have heard several Mormons express this idea.)
The first person Jesus appears to after his resurrection is Mary Magdalene (John 20:11-18). She tries to embrace him and calls him “my Lord” which is how a wife would address her husband.
Mary Magdalene was among the women who anointed Jesus’ body after his crucifixion. This duty would have been performed by a wife. The other women might have been relatives (Mark 16:1).
When Martha was serving her guests, her sister Mary (perhaps Magdalene) was sitting at Jesus’ feet. Instead of directly addressing her sister Martha says to Jesus, “Lord, don’t you care that my sister has left me to do the work by myself? Tell her to help me!” (NIV). She spoke to Jesus as if he was Mary’s husband (Luke 10:38-42).

Personally, I believe that Jesus was married. My wife shares this belief. But to get a better understanding of what other Mormons believe about Jesus being married I created a Google poll and sent it to my relatives (all active in Church). I got sixteen responses. The results are as follows:

I believe Jesus was Married: 9 responses (56.3%)
I believe Jesus might have been married: 6 responses (37.5%)
I believe Jesus was probably not married: 1 response (6.2%)
I do not believe Jesus was married: 0 responses (0.0%).

Was Jesus married poll.

[1] “Was Jesus Married?,” This Rock, vol. 20, No. 5 (May 2009). <http://www.catholic.com/magazine/articles/was-jesus-married, accessed 20160410>

[2] “Peculiar Questions Briefly Answered,” Improvement Era, vol. 15, no. 11 (September 1912).

[3] The Seer, October 1853, vol. 1, no. 10, p. 159.

Posted on December 27, 2015 by TAW

Sustaining Church Officers (Law of Common Consent)

For those of you who are not Mormon I’ll provide some background. In the Church when a person is asked to perform a duty, i.e. a “calling”—whether bishop, primary school teacher, or Apostle—they are presented to the congregation in which they will work for sustaining. In the case of an Apostle or General Authority they are presented to the Church as a whole. The person conducting the meeting will say something along the lines of,

[Ask the person who is to be sustained to stand.] It is proposed that we sustain [So-and-so] as [church position]. Those in favor may manifest it by the uplifted hand. [Pause briefly for the sustaining vote.] Those opposed, if any, may manifest it. [Pause briefly to allow for a dissenting vote, if any.]

What sustaining looks like.

Objections to the sustaining of any person are rare. I don’t recall ever hearing an objection raised in General Conference—though apparently it did happen during the October 1980 General Conference while sustaining of President Spencer W. Kimball.[1] I only recall one time seeing an objection raised in a local congregation.

During the April 2015 General Conference some objections were raised to the proposed sustaining of the First Presidency and Twelve Apostles. According to Fox 13 Salt Lake City there were five objectors.[2]

I confess I was a little shocked when I saw this. Objections are very, very rare.[3] So rare in fact that I had to looked up the procedure for what happens when an objection is raised. According to the Church Handbook of Instruction the following procedure should be followed if there is an objection.

If a member in good standing gives a dissenting vote when someone is presented to be sustained, the presiding officer or another assigned priesthood officer confers with the dissenting member in private after the meeting. The officer determines whether the dissenting vote was based on knowledge that the person who was presented is guilty of conduct that should disqualify him or her from serving in the position. Dissenting votes from nonmembers need not be considered. (Handbook 2, Sustaining Members in Church Callings, 19.3)

The handbook makes it very clear. Valid objections are based on knowledge of disqualifying conduct. Objecting to a persons’ political views or disliking them is not sufficient. I will also emphasize the Handbook says, “a member in good standing” (emphasis added).

Common Consent

The doctrinal reasons for sustaining those who serve in the Church is called the Law of Common Consent. It is based on D&C 26:2 and 20:65:

And all things shall be done by common consent in the church, by much prayer and faith, for all things you shall receive by faith. Amen. (D&C 26:2)

No person is to be ordained to any office in this church, where there is a regularly organized branch of the same, without the vote of that church. (D&C 20:65)

I should point out that we have no paid ministry. From Sunday school teachers to ward clerks, from bishops to stake presidents to Area Authority Seventies, all are unpaid. Only General Authorities receive a stipend. (And there are only about a hundred.[4]) Because the Church is run by volunteers who could decline to serve only common consent works as a ruling principle.

The Doctrine and Covenants Student Manual explains it this way,

No man can preside in this Church in any capacity without the consent of the people. The Lord has placed upon us the responsibility of sustaining by vote those who are called to various positions of responsibility. No man, should the people decide to the contrary, could preside over any body of Latter-day Saints in this Church, and yet it is not the right of the people to nominate, to choose, for that is the right of the priesthood. (Doctrine and Covenants Student Manual, (2002), 54)

This statement originated from then Apostle and later President of the Church, Joseph Fielding Smith. It simply recognizes that the influence of Church leaders is based on the common consent of the people and without it no one could lead.

Apostle James E. Talmage explained it this way,

Every prayer that is offered, every ordinance administered, every doctrine proclaimed by the Church, is voiced in the name of Him whose Church it is.

Nevertheless, as an association of human membership, as a working body having relation with the secular law, as a religious society claiming the rights of recognition and privilege common to all, it is the people’s institution, for the operation of which, so far as such is dependent on them, they are answerable to themselves, to the organization as a unit, and to God.

He went on to say that the idea the Church would reject a revelation “is extreme, and suggests an improbable contingency.”[5]

But there is another dimension to sustaining church officers besides raising your hand to vote ‘yes’. One scripture often used to describe what this means is Exodus 17:12,

But Moses’ hands were heavy; and they took a stone, and put it under him, and he sat thereon; and Aaron and Hur stayed up his hands, the one on the one side, and the other on the other side; and his hands were steady until the going down of the sun.

Aaron and Hur sustained Moses by helping him perform his task. And that is the other dimension of what it means to sustain those who serve in the church. If I vote ‘yes’ then I am doing more than showing my public support. I am taking upon myself a commitment to help that person succeed in his or her calling.

My wife and I sustained our bishop. Therefore, when he asked us to teach primary we accepted. The only time I have ever turned down a calling was when I was sixteen, and I regretted doing it.

So common consent does not mean voting in the traditional sense. There are no candidates and it is not majority rule. It includes members voluntarily sustaining church officers and helping them succeed while recognizing the reality of a volunteer organization.

Sustaining is also part of our covenant relationship to God. In order to attend the temple we must sustain the President of the Church. (See Are Mormons Brainwashed for a list of temple recommend interview questions.)

Sustaining is not intended to providing a platform for dissenters to express their dissatisfaction with Church policy.

Objection to sustaining

I have to be honest. When I hear of people objecting the first thing I question is their motivation. I find it hard to believe any person called to any respective calling is unqualified. That would be an extraordinary contingency. We believe that through faith God will “make weak things become strong” (Ether 12:27). So, for example, if I feel unqualified for a calling God will help me rise to the occasion and it will be an opportunity for personal growth.

With that in mind a legitimate objection would have to be very serious and based on knowledge of the personal life of that person. Knowledge that very few people could legitimately claim. In the case of the objections raised during April conference they likely objected to the Church’s position on gay rights issues. I doubt they knew anything about President Monson that would disqualify him from being President of the church.

One of the objectors commentated to Fox 13 reporter Jeremy Harris, “If this is a living church with continuing revelation it should not be dragged kicking and screaming into the 21st century. It should be leading the pack.” (See [2].)

And to me her objection is clearly not valid.

End Notes_______

[1] The video and transcript of the 1980 objections can be seen at lds.org

2015: https://www.lds.org/general-conference/2015/04/the-sustaining-of-church-officers?lang=eng&media=video#watch=video

1980: https://www.lds.org/general-conference/1980/10/the-sustaining-of-church-officers?lang=eng#watch=video

Both videos were accessed 20151205.

[2] Jeremy Harris, (April 4, 2015). “Vocal oppositions at LDS General Conference not a first. KUTV.com. Retrieved from http://kutv.com/news/local/vocal-oppositions-at-lds-general-conference-not-a-first. Accessed 20151205.

[3] I remember once when I was about six years old. I noticed that no one ever objected during sustaining. I was curious about what would happen if someone did. So when the opportunity to object came round I tried to raise my hand just to see what would happen—my mother held it down.

[4] In the entire church only General Authorities receive a stipend, and they number about 100. For more information see FairMormon, “Mormonism and church finances/No paid ministry/General Authorities living stipend” (accessed 20151205).

[5] Liahona, the Elders’ Journal, Vol. 19, No. 21, pp. 405-406, April 11, 1922. < https://books.google.com/books?id=f2jUAAAAMAAJ&pg=PA405&dq> accessed 20151205. Elder Talmage also said, “the plan of organization and government of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is that of a theo-democracy.”

Posted on November 20, 2015 by TAW

Extermination Order

HEAD QUARTERS, MILITIA

City of Jefferson

Oct. 27, 1838

Sir,

Since the order of the morning to you, directing you to cause four hundred mounted men to be raised within your division, I have received by Amos Rees, Esq. and Wiley E. Williams Esq., one of my aids, information of the most appalling character, which changes the whole face of things, and places the Mormons in the attitude of an open and avowed defiance of the laws, and of having made open war upon the people of this state. Your orders are, therefore, to hasten your operations and endeavor to reach Richmond, in Ray County, with all possible speed. The Mormons must be treated as enemies, and must be exterminated or driven from the state, if necessary, for the public good. Their outrages are beyond all description. If you can increase your force, you are authorized to do so to any extent you may think necessary. I have just issued orders to Maj. Gen. Wallock, of Marion County, to raise 500 men and march them to the northern part of Daviess, and there unite with Gen. Doniphan, of Clay, who has been ordered with 500 men to proceed to the same point, for the purpose of intercepting the retreat of the Mormons to the North. They have been directed to communicate with you by express. You can also communicate with them if you find it necessary. Instead, therefore, of proceeding, as at first directed, to reinstate the citizens of Daviess in their homes, you will proceed immediately to Richmond, and there operate against the Mormons. Brig. Gen. Parks, of Ray, has been ordered to have four hundred men of his brigade in readiness to join you at Richmond. The whole force will be placed under your command.

L. W. BOGGS, Gov.

To Gen. Clark.

(Taken from “Extermination Order“, Wikipedia)

Posted on August 4, 2015 by TAW

Polygamy in Utah, 1880

In this post I estimate the number of men and women living in polygamy in Utah in 1880 using data from the 1880 census and other sources.

I have estimated that in 1880 there approximately 9,000 persons in polygamous marriages in Utah. About 6,500 wives and 2,500 husbands. This is approximately 25% of married Mormon women and about 13% of married Mormon men. However, the total number could easily be closer to 10,000.

I also conclude that the census data by itself is not sufficient for estimating the number of persons living in polygamy. Other data is required. This conclusion is based on the fact that the married female to married male ratio for Utah from the 1880 and 1900 census’ were outliers. However, in 1890 it was nearly 1.0 (Figure 4), which means that in 1890 nearly all women in polygamous relationships were concealing their marital status, probably to protect their husbands and children. I believe that in the 1880 census nearly two thirds of women in polygamous relationships concealed their marital status.

These results should be qualified with polygamy studies from Utah’s earlier history. It is appears that during the 1860’s quite possibly more than 50% of married LDS women in Utah were polygamous wives.

Continue reading →

Posted on May 2, 2015 by TAW

Utah Polygamy and Divorce – 1880 to 1930

Summary: I promised another post on divorce and I finally have enough data to write about. So here it is. (This just keeps getting more and more interesting.)

I have analyzed census data from 1880, 1890, 1900, 1910, 1920, and 1930. I restricted the analysis to the white, 15 and older population for the states and territories of the lower 48 states.

In 1880 Utah’s female divorce rate was the third highest in the US, only New Mexico and Nevada are higher. From 1880 to about 1910 Utah’s female divorce rate steadily decreases while the rest of the US tends to increase. From 1910 to 1930 Utah’s female divorce rate rapidly increases, following the national trend. The male divorce rate from 1890 to 1930 follows the national trend.

When looking at the difference in percent male and percent female divorce rates we see that in 1880 Utah had the second highest difference in the US, only Nevada is higher. Utah’s over 15 male to female ratio in 1880 was about 1.1 while Nevada’s was almost 2.5. Utah had a population of 143,964 compared to Nevada’s 62,266. From 1890 and 1900 Utah had the highest difference in male and female divorce rates in the United States. By 1910 Utah’s male and female divorce rate difference was the second only to Colorado. By 1920 Utah had the second highest divorce rate difference, only California was higher. By 1930 the difference in Utah’s male-female divorce rate was equal to the US third quartile.

Because the male and female divorce rates for US states and territories are correlated better than 89% two factor plots provide some additional insight. When the female divorce rate is plotted against the male divorce rate Utah stands out from the national trend for 1880, 1890, and 1900. For 1910 and 1920 it stands out a little. By 1930 Utah is well within national trends.

The only explanation I can see for this is polygamy. It appears that polygamy increased Utah’s female divorce rate noticeably above national trends. And this effect lasted for 20 years after the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints officially stopped polygamy in 1890, maybe longer.

The value of this goes beyond academic interest. It can also relate to the gay marriage debate currently going on in the US Supreme Court. If the state can ban polyamorous unions then why not same sex marriage. From this data we can see quite objectively that polygamy increases the female divorce rate. I’m not going to get into that debate now but you can hear the supreme court arguments here and here. Continue reading →

Posted on March 27, 2009 by TAW

Omniscience: Does God Learn?

Does God Learn?

If you were to ask a typical Mormon the question “Does God learn?” you would most likely get a negative response. Mormons today tend to believe in what is called the neo-classical view of God, which as it applies to divine learning means that God knows everything.

However, this was not always the case. During the 19th century the common belief among Mormons was that God is forever progressing to greater knowledge. In 1857 Apostle Wilford Woodruff (who became 4th president of the church in 1889) said, “God himself is increasing and progressing in knowledge, power, and dominion, and will do so, worlds without end” (JD 6:120). Brigham Young said, “The greatest intelligence in existence can continually ascend to greater heights of perfection” (JD 1:93).[1] George Q. Cannon (Apostle; d. 1901) said, “There is progress for our Father and for our Lord Jesus…It is endless progress, progressing from one degree of knowledge to another degree” (Gospel Truth: Discourses and Writings of President George Q. Cannon, p. 92). General Authority B.H. Roberts (Seventy; d. 1933) wrote, “God is [not] Omniscient up to the point that further progress in knowledge is impossible to him; but that all knowledge that is, all that exists, God knows” (Seventy’s Course in Theology, vol. 4, p. 70-71).