Yes, early Mormons did believe that Jesus practiced polygamy. I am a Mormon myself, and I know that no one ever tells you at Church that early members believed that, but they actually did. Here is a quote from Orson Pratt:
"It will be borne in mind that once on a time, there was a marriage in Cana of Galilee; . . .no less a person than Jesus Christ was married on that occasion. If he was never married, his intimacy with Mary and Martha, and the other Mary also whom Jesus loved, must have been highly unbecoming and improper to say the least of it."
"I will venture to say that if Jesus Christ were now to pass through the most pious countries in Christendom with a train of women, such as used to follow him, . . .he would be mobbed, tarred, and feathered, and rode, not on an @ss, but on a rail."
"At this doctrine the long-faced hypocrite and the sanctimonious bigot will probably cry, blasphemy! . . . Object not, therefore, too strongly against the marriage of Christ." (All the above statements: Journal of Discourses, Vol. 4, pages 259-260)
And here's one from Brigham Young:
"The Scripture says that He, the Lord, came walking in the Temple, with 'HIS TRAIN'; I do not know who they were, unless his wives and children;" (Journal of Discourses, Vol. 13. page 309)
There is no proof, only hints, in the Bible to show that Jesus was married. The early Mormons probably believed He was a polygamist because many of them were.
2007-03-12 08:58:26
·
answer #1
·
answered by James, Pet Guy 4
·
1⤊
1⤋
A large number of religious scholars are convinced by scriptural evidence and other archialogical records that Jesus was married to a single woman (monogamy), a fact which draws intense religious heat in its inherent conflict with religious doctrines, assumptions (beliefs), and practices of many popular Christian denominations. Concerning your question/claim, we need sources cited, for I have seen no evidence of this. Even if such were the case, popular beliefs do not constitute official doctrine and only reveal the nature of the people at the time to hold to certain sets of beliefs.
2007-03-12 06:58:46
·
answer #2
·
answered by Andy 4
·
1⤊
0⤋
i imagine that's awfully revealing that for each of the resources listed right here, no individual, no longer Brigham youthful or everyone else - can say they actually had a ingenious and prescient of a few form that proved Jesus Christ replaced into married to bigger than one individual. in my view, it would not count number that a lot one way or the different. in my view, there is one individual for each body, and polygamy has in undemanding words been a non everlasting idea. If Jesus did have little ones, you may imagine they could were mortal and not in any respect immortal, considering that he replaced into 1/2-mortal, so little ones born from a mortal mom may were 3/4 mortal - round it as a lot as frequently mortal. in case you look at this manner of agenda he kept in the recent testomony, i do not imagine he had that a lot time for diverse households. I for one ought to understand what befell to John the Baptist's spouse, as she is not in any respect reported. per chance John can ought to attend until eventually the Resurrection to get that worked out. If Jesus had one unmarried spouse, i imagine she may were difficulty to devil's attacks even more beneficial than Jesus replaced into, and that i have lengthy idea that per chance she did not even live on earth.
2016-12-01 21:26:42
·
answer #3
·
answered by ? 4
·
0⤊
0⤋
I am a life-long member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saint and I have never heard that one. Perhaps you can share with us where you found that little tid-bit?
2007-03-12 06:53:24
·
answer #4
·
answered by Dublin Ducky 5
·
4⤊
0⤋
Where are you getting your information on Mormons? It's not exactly accurate.
2007-03-12 05:41:35
·
answer #5
·
answered by Scotty Doesnt Know 7
·
2⤊
1⤋
it fits the other trash teachings of the founder and his followers, the cult thinks its pure and above all other authority, spiritual or secular, very scary folks!
2007-03-12 05:43:04
·
answer #6
·
answered by Charles V 4
·
0⤊
3⤋
misled /confused /weird/drudged /not of this world/ ?
2007-03-12 05:42:29
·
answer #7
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
2⤋