Quantcast
Utah

Evangelical preaches at Salt Lake Tabernacle

Comments

Return To Article
  • Marshall R Motz
    Dec. 14, 2007 12:23 a.m.

    While I applaud the spirit of loving ecumenism displayed by Mouw and Zacharias, their naivete (like that of most democrats and would-be liberals--and I am one of them too) is truly embarrassing and sad. I the fourth paragraph above, Ravi professes shock that the DaVinci Code attacks the purity of Jesus by suggesting that he "had sex" with Mary Magdalene. Surely he is aware that in the Mormon version of things Jesus had no less than THREE wives: Mary and Martha AND Mary Magdalene. If you want to display a loving spirit toward all men in the name of Jesus, that's fine, but surely we "theologians" dare not depart from any interest in the facts... Is Fuller---my own alma mater---still interested in THEOLOGY? WE need to love the Mormons, but surely not at the cost of abandoning even the minimum elements of objectivity. Who do we believe Jesus is, or was? Does it matter at all for this "Christian philosopher"?

  • livia warner10:35 pm Jan.1,08
    Jan. 1, 2008 11:48 p.m.

    I have been a member of the lds church, and associated with it for 45 of my 53 years, and have never read, or heard that Jesus had three wives. I would like Marshall R Motz to name his sources please.

  • Chris
    Jan. 2, 2008 12:51 a.m.

    As a member of the LDS Church, I have not heard anything of that nature taught either. Perhaps there's some quote way back in the history of the church suggesting something like that, but it's surely not part of the official church canon, and certainly doesn't reflect the real focus on Jesus Christ in every sermon or lesson I've had, ie, that He is the Son of God, The Savior of the World, and that it is only through His atonement that anyone can be saved. It's a shame that such a post would be made concerning an article about members of the two communities coming together for a night of understanding, during which one pastor apologized for the misrepresentations of LDS doctrine that had occurred.

  • David Schmidt
    Jan. 2, 2008 1:01 a.m.

    Ha ha, Marshall, I may not have been a member of the church for 45 years like livia above me (I'm 24) but regardless of what you may have heard or read in some book written by A mormon, the belief that Jesus had wives is not an official doctrine taught in the LDS church. Granted, historical and biblical evidence may hint to such possibilities as Jesus being married, and granted the belief in LDS doctrine that to ascend to the highest realm of the celestial kingdom a man must be sealed to a woman and so the ASSUMPTION is made by many members, current (such as myself) and early-day saints (Such as Orson Pratt) that Jesus was probably married; but that is NOT official LDS doctrine. There IS a difference. You really should cite your source as Livia said. And if it wasn't PUBLISHED by the body of the First Presidency, it isn't official LDS doctrine.

  • royboy
    Jan. 2, 2008 1:51 a.m.

    I am thankful to Mr Motz for his information about the LDS beliefs about the three wives that Jesus had. I am 76 years old and have been a member of the church all my life and this is the first time that I have heard this one. I get my information about what the LDS churh teaches from the LDS apostles and prophets I am sure Mr. Motz gets his information elsewhere.

  • AZ Mike
    Jan. 2, 2008 4:33 a.m.

    Why is the Deseret News publishing this article again as if it were new? This meeting took place some 3 or 4 years ago. In light of the recent rhetoric that's taken place, this sure seems an odd time to re-hash this particular meeting.

  • Carole Knowles
    Jan. 2, 2008 4:55 a.m.

    Marsahll, you're out to lunch. I tell ya, it's like the anti-mormons have their own LDS literature, their own LDS beliefs, their own LDS scriptures, all of which have nothing to do with the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints. I think that one day, probably Brigham Young sneezed and it sounded like he said something about Jesus and his wives and somewhere, an anti-mormon wrote that in his list of LDS beliefs.
    The anties continue to go to the baker to get their cars fixed, the dentist to get their eyes examined, and the urologist to get their dental work done. I've been hearing this stuff for 30 years now, never at church, but always the same stuff coming out of the same mouths. They've learned nothing and continue to teach nothing. Silly waste of time.

  • David
    Jan. 2, 2008 5:09 a.m.

    I believe the comment Motz is referring to was written by Orson Pratt, in a doctrinal treatise called The Seer. The writings were Pratt's own doctrinal speculations, not official doctrinal statements of the Church (although he presents his ideas in an authoritative fashion). Maybe similar statements from other 19th century church leaders can be found elsewhere as well. But it is absurd to say that it is "the Mormon version of things." I have never heard such doctrines in Church meetings, not once in all my life. That was Pratt's version of things.

  • Sadie
    Jan. 2, 2008 5:41 a.m.

    I have been active LDS for 60 years and I have never been taught that Jesus had any wives. Marshall Motz needs to come forward with his source of information so that we can all be informed.

    I think this meeting at the Tabernacle could be a beginning of new understanding and the apology is very much in order. However, I don't think most of the so called Christians will go along with it.

  • rp
    Jan. 2, 2008 5:42 a.m.

    In the sceme of things why even speculate that Christ had three, one, or no wives. His sole purpose was to come to earth to save mankind. That is all we as sons and daughters of God need to know to gain eternal life. If we needed to know the personal and human side of Christ it would have been in the scriptures. What we do not know here we will learn in the next life. Lets not demoralize our Savior and Redeemer.

  • Nope
    Jan. 2, 2008 5:47 a.m.

    As a lifetime LDS member of some 40 years, and having researched the doctrine extensively--Marshall Motz, there is no such doctrine as Jesus' 3 wives. It is simply considered logical to many LDS members, given that marriage is one of the conditions of becoming exalted in the Celestial Kingdom, that He too was married. Some have speculated many things, but there is NO official LDS doctrine whatsoever about who his wife was.

    Marshall Motz, I join in the call for you to please name your source for this erroneous information. It's sadly inappropriate--and woefully contrary to the spirit in which this meeting was held--to launch an allegation that's patently false and then duck out without giving your audience the opportunity to discover your source's biases.

    I would like to see more open-mindedness along the lines of Dr. Mouw among all of us. He is a true Christian, if ever there was one.

  • Mid Atlantic
    Jan. 2, 2008 6:02 a.m.

    What a weird result of presidential politics that some agenda-driven anti-Mormon would look up a THREE YEAR OLD story like this and lie about the beliefs of the Mormon church in order to . . . (fill in the blank).

    How pathetic.

  • Kerry Wallace
    Jan. 2, 2008 6:03 a.m.

    It is a sad sad thought that, although so many TRUE Christians are finally coming around to see the truth, there are those still rooted in the evil of lies and half truths. I reach out to you Mr. Motz and ask you to embrace Jesus as your Savior and leave the evil religion upon which you, as so many others, have embraced. That is to say Anti-ism (Anti-Mormonism, Anti-semitism, Anti-Catholocism, Anti-Islamism). It is a terrible sin and just as addictive as pornography or drugs. It will slowly but surely blacken your heart and destroy your sole and if you are not careful you will end up like so many addicts...more willing to tear down other faiths than build faith in the Lord and Savior Jesus. I have seen it happen time and time again to good men who let themselves become ensnared in a web of lies and deceit. Repent, find an ecclesiastical leader who is not infected and ask for help, get on your knees and ask God to help you.

  • Angelino
    Jan. 2, 2008 6:14 a.m.

    This is possibly one of the most positive and encouraging events I have heard of in a long time. I have become so dismayed and even angry at the continual drum beat as of late, between the Evangelical and LDS communities.

    Bigotry comes in many forms, and far too much of it has been displayed lately,particularly from the likes of Mr. O'Donnell on MSNBC. I will say, the positive effect on myself is, that in having felt the pain and disgust after his outburst, has made me resolve to never slander another persons faith, whether it is Christian, Jewish, Muslim or Whatever.

  • russ
    Jan. 2, 2008 6:58 a.m.

    Can we work on cleaning up a phrase? "True Christian." Either you is, or you ain't. Skip the word, "True," say, "Christian." How can you be a false Christian? You are either a Christian, or not. Look at it another way: "True Mormon." No, the person is either Mormon or not.

    Language is to clarify matters, not to... obfuscate?

  • Ron in OC
    Jan. 2, 2008 7:03 a.m.

    I keep looking for a response from Marshall Motz. What's interesting about these blogs, is that you can state something as fact and then run and hide. Where are you Marshall Motz??

  • Sam Hofer
    Jan. 2, 2008 7:07 a.m.

    I don't think these rebranding efforts to mainstream mormonisms'image will work in time to put Mitt in the big chair, but it's interesting to watch.

  • Anonymous
    Jan. 2, 2008 7:24 a.m.

    I think it would be great to have an annual meeting every year to comemmorate the lds and evangelicals friendship together.

  • Anonymous
    Jan. 2, 2008 7:35 a.m.

    I was feeling very pleased to read about the meeting until I read one of the comments noting it happened in 2004. I went back to the article and IT'S TRUE!!

    I really would like to know why this article was published again 3 years later. And I also hope my comment is posted!

  • deseretnews.com moderator
    Jan. 2, 2008 7:42 a.m.

    As some of our readers have noticed, this is an archive article from 2004. The only place this story can be found is in archives and on the most popular list. The story has not been reprinted. It has been searched for and read by many readers, putting it on the most popular list.

  • wow how we have changed
    Jan. 2, 2008 8:47 a.m.

    To all you members who have been decades in the Church. Have you ever read the Doctrine and Covenants? D&C 1311 IN the celestial glory there are three heavens or degrees;
    2 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];
    3 And if he does not, he cannot obtain it.
    4 He may enter into the other, but that is the end of his kingdom; he cannot have an increase.
    If Christ is to obtain the highest degree in the Celestial kingdom he must be married. D&C 132 says that plural marriage is required also until be backed down from that. In general conference, a member of the First Presidency stated that Christ had 3 wives, Mary, Martha and Mary Magdalene. His name was Heber C. Kimball. Brigham Young was on the stand and did not correct him because he believed it also. Those who do not believe it are the leaders today, so they do not teach it. But that does not make it untrue. We also do not believe in concentration anymore even though we covenant we will live the law.

  • Mike Johnson Fallon, NV
    Jan. 2, 2008 9:02 a.m.

    Rebranding? The LDS Church has continually corrected misconceptions of our doctrine from the beginning of the Church. Rebranding is not being done to put anybody in the White House, but is the result of constantly being told by non-members with agendas what they think we should believe and do not understand the process by which things become doctrine in the LDS Church.

  • lotta-mo-hooey
    Jan. 2, 2008 9:02 a.m.

    Yet, when the converts began to file off, some to one party, and some to another, it was seen that the seemingly good feelings of both the priests and the converts were more pretended than real

  • Spencer
    Jan. 2, 2008 9:52 a.m.

    Mr. Motz has manifested "in word and deed" and "by [his] fruits" that he is not a Christian. Bigotry is never an acceptable approach to sharing the gospel of Jesus Christ. It is one thing to disagree, but the spirit in which one goes about it reveals "the inward things of the heart."

    I would encourage you, Mr. Motz, to "search thine own heart, and KNOW IT WELL, for out of it flow th issues of life."

  • Bob Pomeroy
    Jan. 2, 2008 9:53 a.m.

    Out of the abundance ... ? Is this really so important?

  • AZ Ute
    Jan. 2, 2008 10:06 a.m.

    To the Messrs. Motz and "wow how we have changed":

    Quit using hearsay. Please provide us your sources, ie. Name, publication, date, page, etc. Additionally, I think you meant "consecration", not "concentration". We are concentrating, you are not. Awaiting your reply.

  • Iron Axe
    Jan. 2, 2008 10:19 a.m.

    To Marshall Mortz: To try and explain to you something precious as the mormon doctrine is like what the scripture says, do not cast your pearls to the swine, it is hard to teach an old dog a new trick and whatever info that you have, we shouldn't waste our breath talking about it.....I just wonder why this talk in the heart of the Mormonism was not blasted on the CNN or Times Magazine or 60 mintues or 20/20...it is because the whole media still want America to believe that we are not christians, I would love for them to invite one of our missionaries to speak in their synagogues, or at the Vatican or where ever I swear they will all feel threatened and laugh the Mormons out of town, but I it won't surprise me.....Mortz, get a life

  • Star Lite
    Jan. 2, 2008 10:20 a.m.

    David
    I have that book the SEER. I don't think this book is published any longer. I read the book and It really through me off just a bit with the LDS religion. It's a good thing the church doesn't live by the teachings of Orson Pratt or I would go inactive. I believe that Mary Magdalene was the only wife of Jesus. I don't think it's right just because some strange LDS person has a notion that Jesus was a polygamist should cause any great emotional disturbance... It just simply NEVER happened! People just need to leave Jesus alone. They know nothing about his person life with his wife Mary M. Guessers out there just need to leave it a lone. Don't try to bring the Savior down to your level. Won't happen! No way!

  • YesOrNo
    Jan. 2, 2008 10:28 a.m.

    I hear from numerous Mormons that they dont teach Jesus had three wives. Thats a good and wise decision because substantiating such a claim is hard with the evidence from the Holy Bible. Do Mormons BELIEVE Jesus had three wives? A Mormon cant answer to that question as a big NO. Their silent answer is YES.

  • 3 wives..didn't happen!
    Jan. 2, 2008 10:48 a.m.

    The Man Jesus DID NOT HAVE THREE WIVES! It's only a good point of view for those lusty men who want it for themselves. Lets not get on the kick of whats good for man is not also good for the woman. Some men out there just need to get a life and quit putting Jesus in their silly lusty dreams for another woman. If People can make up something that Jesus did than we can make it right for us too. YA RIGHT!

  • Schmoltz or Motz
    Jan. 2, 2008 10:48 a.m.

    Please, no more schmoltz from Moltz please. Clarify your sources...but no more schmo.

    PS..Since when in Christian doctrine is marriage a bad thing. Did not the Apostle Paul say something like this, "A man without the woman, or the woman without the man is NOT in the Lord". Many of us continue to believe this to be an enlightened statement coming from Higher sources than Paul.

  • laguna
    Jan. 2, 2008 10:55 a.m.

    LDS doctrine continues to morph and change with the trends in modern times. Early members wouldnt recognize the beliefs of today. But that is the same with the Catholic church also.

  • YesOrNo
    Jan. 2, 2008 11:14 a.m.

    I'm surprised at why the Mormons are screaming at the poster Motz for the sources. A mormon should find the sources themselves. If a mormon does not know, then the Church is not telling the truth to you. Keeping that search aside, no Mormon who have posted comments to the article has answered my question. Do you believe or you dont believe Jesus was married, or he had three wives? Give me a YES or NO. Don't give me a spin!

  • ToLaugan
    Jan. 2, 2008 11:18 a.m.

    What beliefs have changed in the Catholic Church from the beginning? Name one belief please.

  • Jesus didn't do it!!
    Jan. 2, 2008 11:19 a.m.

    This is really depressing. Religion doesn't make much sense to me. All religions are, are man made to what ever feels good to those who want to believe in something. A true human flaw. This is just the reason why I don't put my penguin suit every Sunday and go to church. It really brings me down. I like thinking for myself. I do believe that Jesus once lived. I think people are making his life up generation after generation. I would like him to appear to me and let me know whats really going on in this mixed up world. I don't want to listen to a bunch of NO IT ALLS who really are just guessing and making it convient for themselves. Wheres the evidents?

  • To "Schmoltz or Motz"
    Jan. 2, 2008 11:20 a.m.

    Did not the Apostle Paul say something like this "A man without the woman, or the woman without the man is NOT in the Lord".

    Show me the sources please.

  • Hey Yes or No
    Jan. 2, 2008 11:28 a.m.

    I'll make a small clarification so you don't get confused. The church as a whole does not believe Jesus had three wives. There is nothing taught by the church that such doctrine is true. However it is possible a small portion of LDS members might have the three wife opinion. The most common assumption... and I do mean assumption...NOT DOCTRINE.... is that Jesus was married while on this earth. That theory makes sense but has never been directly preached. So to sum it up the answer if you want a majority LDS vote would be NO Jesus did not have three wives.

  • What Happened?!?
    Jan. 2, 2008 11:28 a.m.

    Boy it took until about 7:00 am this morning (after the original comment was posted in December) to get the "antis" commenting. And then there was a big gap until about 10:30 am.

    You "antis" almost missed the ship! There might have been a Mormon who read the article without you being around to clarify our beliefs for us and save our souls from the awful thing that is Mormonism. Is it because you were too busy over on the Postum article making fun of our beliefs and practices to come and post things out of your little anti-Mormon books?

    I particularly enjoy the "I'm LDS" comments from the "antis." How sad it must be to go through life feeling like you have to tear down and criticize people.

  • Anti Nonmemebers
    Jan. 2, 2008 12:06 p.m.

    To WHAT HAPPENED?

    You are anti nonmember. So I suppose this makes you better and a judge of all. Whatever anyone one's religion is on here is their own right. I suppose it's still free speech to all people in this country. This sort of stuff is what I really dislike about some LDS members. No one else has aright to his or her beliefs. Gee, you are so righteous and arrogant. You act just the way Jesus would want you too?... arrogant and self righeous!......SORRY! NOT THE WAY OF JESUS!

    Jesus did NOT have three wives rather you want believe this is your very own right. But leave me to mine.

  • Re: YesOrNo
    Jan. 2, 2008 12:11 p.m.

    What does Jesus' marital status have to do with the article? And since when did our "voting" on such a thing make it true or not true? But OK, I'll play your game. I'm LDS. It seems logical to me that Jesus would have been married, as it was customary for those who spoke in synagogues to be married, so YES to the first part. Do I believe he was polygamous? I'd have to say NO to that, but I'm not going to get my knickers in a twist over someone else who thinks he might have been. Tell you what, next time you and I see Jesus, we can ask him, that should settle the disagreement, right? :)

  • To "Hey Yes or No"
    Jan. 2, 2008 12:17 p.m.

    That is very interesting. The majority would vote Jesus had no three wives. And some would vote Jesus had three wives. Aren't they all from the same Church you belong to? Why the Church itself does not deny this blasphemy against Jesus if the majorty vote for NO. A CHURCH PROMOTING SPECULATIONS, ASSUMPTIONS and at the same time claiming as the ONLY TRUE CHURCH is confused as you are confused. Don't spin the whole issue by blaming the thoughtful thinkers as anti-mormons. Feel sorry for you guys!

  • laguna
    Jan. 2, 2008 12:26 p.m.

    The challenge to point out changes in the Catholic church is easy. Without much thought to the subject, here are a few.

    1. priests were only required to not marry a few hundred years ago, not in antiquity.
    2. the Catholic church refused to believe that the earth was round and persecuted scholars who proved otherwise.
    3. The chuch imposed the inquisition in Spain and Italy, killing an torturing thousands. Do they still believe this.
    4. The chuch used to teach that the Jews were responsible for Christs murder. They recently apologized for this. If there was no change in belief, then no apology was necessary.

    I could go on an on, but I was asked for one change in the Catholic church.

  • NO WAY!
    Jan. 2, 2008 12:39 p.m.

    HEY! No one on here knew Jesus personally. So quit making stuff up about him and his life. Although, he could of been married to Mary Mag., but that is it! No others! Don't mix this with Mormon polyagamy! NO WAY ON EARTH! That is all man made arrangements and just a form of slavery. You guys who believe this malarkey need to REPENT!

  • I'm confused....
    Jan. 2, 2008 12:54 p.m.

    I'm confused. Many of the comments are pointing out a distinction, which makes no difference:

    "Official Mormon doctrine does NOT teach that Jesus was married (to three women or thirty!), BUT we know that Mormon doctrine DOES say that to attain the highest level of the celestial kingdom, a man must be sealed to a worth women (section 132)".

    So....we do believe he was married. I personally don't care one way or another, but we do believe that. Maybe no GA has the courage to actually discuss it, but it is true. End of story.

  • To Laguna
    Jan. 2, 2008 12:55 p.m.

    Talk to me about their beliefs of the Holy Bible, Jesus Christ which have been changed. I'm not a Catholic, but I thought earth was flat when I was like 8 or 9 years old. I think the earth is round now after my "brain" developed.

  • Thomas
    Jan. 2, 2008 12:57 p.m.

    I'm inclined to believe that if Jesus were married during his ministry (i.e. from the age of 30 to his death at 33), the Gospels would have mentioned that fairly significant detail.

    On the other hand, if Jesus made it to 30 without getting married, there was one Jewish mama who definitely fell down on the job.

    It's possible that Jesus was married at some point, but that his wife died before he turned 30. (The life expectancy of a wife in those days wasn't great; childbirth alone killed women like flies.) Nothing much is mentioned of Jesus' adolescence and early adulthood, so you can't necessarily draw any inference one way or the other from the silence of the scriptural record of that period. Maybe he was, and maybe he wasn't.

  • Rick
    Jan. 2, 2008 1:23 p.m.

    This is so old news its pathetic. This article was Published Monday, Nov. 15, 2004 9:12 a.m. MST, but to tell you the truth... Who cares?

  • To Thomas
    Jan. 2, 2008 1:28 p.m.

    Jesus was not married, neither he had three wives. If he was married, that reason would have been used against him while he was prosecuted by the Jews. Jesus's disciple St.Thomas came to India in AD 52. He taught many high caste Hindus (brahmins) about Christ. The Christians in the Southern part of India are the followers of St.Thomas' own testimony of Jesus. I have studied many written documents from the year 400 AD. The Christians in India are strong as their first love to Christ. They know more about Christ, his life and teachings.

  • laguna
    Jan. 2, 2008 1:28 p.m.

    The early Catholic church got their mistaken belief that the earth was flat FROM the bible. All of the beliefs of the Catholic church were derived from their understanding of the bible. They had no other scripture than the bible. And they were wrong in many of their beliefs as I have provided above.

  • Laughter is the best medicine
    Jan. 2, 2008 1:53 p.m.

    People just like to argue and fight! It is the true nature of all humans. As for me, I respect all the views written on here. It help me understand those around me just a bit better. Also, Deseret News Thanks for the many humorous blogs. They make my day!

  • ToLaguna
    Jan. 2, 2008 1:54 p.m.

    Show me from the Bible where it is said that the earth is flat, and that being used by Catholics to believe that.

  • To Marshall
    Jan. 2, 2008 2:01 p.m.

    This discussion is all speculation and a member of any of the multitudes of Christian sects as well as Mormon, Jew, Muslim, atheist, etc. could discuss this doctrinal issue until they were blue in the face, but IT WOULDN'T MATTER.

    That is not the point of the article here. The point as I read it is that we need to live the precepts of our religions. Love your neighbor does not mean love your neighbor unless he's Mormon and in that case, lie and throw accusations around and make anonymous false allegations on blogs and doing this will assure that you are a good Christian.

    "WE need to love the Mormons, but surely not at the cost of abandoning even the minimum elements of objectivity." That's what Marshall R Motz said. Perhaps he has a special edition of the Bible that exempts the "love one another" part from applying to Mormons.

  • To Marshall
    Jan. 2, 2008 2:07 p.m.

    If you google the name of the original commentor, you can find the discussion out of which his comment came and why he posted here. Wow. A lot of vitriol and misrepresentations and half truths out there.

  • To "Laughter is the best..."
    Jan. 2, 2008 2:09 p.m.

    Being a new kid in the town, I have been invited for a "dinner" at a Mormon friend's home. At the end of the dinner, the atmosphere has been changed into reading the Book Of Mormon and praises to Joseph Smith. Whatelse to say than "Trapped"! Talking about my experience to another friend who is not a Mormon, he had the same experience from this Mormon friend also. We all have laugher with Mormons especially when it comes to SPECULATIONS!

  • Talkin' Jesus Here
    Jan. 2, 2008 2:15 p.m.

    What happen to the subject Jesus, talk on here?

    TO Iaguna/Laguna:

    Let me break it to you gently, the earth is not flat. I believe Christopher Columbus is the one who thought at one time that the world was flat, but he soon got over it.

  • SLMG
    Jan. 2, 2008 2:17 p.m.

    More Mormon urban legends, don't we just love em!!!
    Stick to the Scriptures and stop the second guessing.

  • ExecutorIoh
    Jan. 2, 2008 2:25 p.m.

    This line of thought is ridiculous. Look at all of the time that has been wasted by speculation. Nobody knows the marital status of the Savior, so let's just leave it at that. You have your beliefs and I have mine. Whichever is right, great! In the long run, it really doesn't matter.

  • BELIEVE IN HIM
    Jan. 2, 2008 3:28 p.m.

    TO EXCALUBER,

    JESUS ALWAYS MATTERS! He is our savior and without him we are all be in big trouble big time. He died for our sins. Could any of us do that for the whole world? There are days however, that i would certainly like to do so, but I know it wouldn't be possible for none of us have the power for this sacrafice without the help of Gods. So we need to appreciate this great man for what he stood for. Plus, throw away all the twisted crosses that resemble his death where he was brutally killed. The cross was a weapon for the murder our savior. It's ugly! Even satan worshipers wear them upside down. GRIZZLY!

  • The answer is NO
    Jan. 2, 2008 3:50 p.m.

    I repeat what has been said earlier: Christ's marital status cannot be found in Church doctrine nor does it appear in any revelation or scripture of the LDS faith. Do not confuse speculation with revelation.

    The prophet Joseph Smith wrote: "We believe all that God has revealed, all that He does now reveal, and we believe that He will yet reveal many great and important things pertaining to the Kingdom of God."

    Since God has not revealed this matter it cannot be counted as Church doctrine. The only way a Mormon should believe in the matter at hand is if it is revealed to the prophet.



  • Answer YES
    Jan. 2, 2008 4:26 p.m.

    Your prophet Joseph Smith said God revealted to him that Lamanites are the principal ancestors of the American Indians. Now that has been changed in the Book Of Mormon. Which prophet got the revelation now that the Lamanites are among and not the principal ancestors of the American Indians? Dear Friend, how do you spin that subject with speculation and revelation?

  • true story
    Jan. 2, 2008 4:55 p.m.

    A temple-worthy Mormon man told me this years ago:
    "The problem with most Mormons is they have problems discerning revelations."

  • texas mom
    Jan. 2, 2008 5:43 p.m.

    Would someone please get this article printed in the southern newspapers?

  • To: Answer YES
    Jan. 2, 2008 5:48 p.m.

    Once again you are confusing the sources and church doctrine. Joseph Smith DID NOT say that the Lamanites were principal ancestors of the American Indians. The Introduction to the Book of Mormon was written by Bruce R McConkie and is not considered doctrine, just an introduction. Apostles have opinions just like LDS members have opinions, the same can be said for all faiths. There is a set doctrine but people are free to speculate as they would. The difference is that they receive revelations occasionally on church doctrine.

  • Re: Answer YES
    Jan. 2, 2008 5:49 p.m.

    Well, DNA says it all! no two ways about it.

  • Steve - Corrections...
    Jan. 2, 2008 5:52 p.m.

    Marshall Motz: As a life long LDS person I can say I've never heard it taught by us that Jesus had 3 wives here on Earth. The ONLY specualtion I've heard is Jesus had one wife, who MAY have been Mary Magdalene. Why and how would Jesus be married to his own mother (Mary) as you suggest?

    As to anyone who thinks Jesus being married makes Him less devine, I don't see how. Jesus always led by example so if we're expected to marry, naturally He would do it too.

    So my answer to YesorNO is, Yes... I believe Jesus was/is married or at least might have been. I'd never rule it out. I like many others believe the wedding He attended in the Bible might have been His own.

    Keep in mind the Bible has passed through many hands, back long ago when the Catholic Church started and put the Bible together it's entirely possible they edited out any direct reference to Jesus being married (as they apparently think a man more holy without sex, which is why their priests don't marry... unless I'm mistaken, Catholics feel free to correct me).

  • Rick too
    Jan. 2, 2008 5:55 p.m.

    Just a minute here ! I see a definite trend anytime I read an article regarding Mitt/politics/LDS etc. etc. There are a few individuals out there who get their jollies with their provocative, highly inflammatory comments which are nowhere close to the truth. They post the most disgusting lies then just sit back and watch as we LDS folks reply and laugh their disgusting heads off. I read a comment yesterday about how we LDS despise the Constitution and Mitt has an agenda which follows that concept. And today we read that we believe Christ had three wives. I attended BYU after serving a mission in 1966-1968. So I have been around for a few years like many of you. Never have I heard the likes of this and lotsa other outrageous lies which pop up on the internet.
    Great article DN, and intended to show positive relations between LDS and our Evangelical friends.
    Most of us are trying to live as best we can plus trying to build bridges with our neighbors of other faiths and ethnic origins. We are all trying to make our neighborhoods and communities and schools better.

  • laguna
    Jan. 2, 2008 6:00 p.m.

    It is rather comical to hear true-believers in Mormonism, Islam, Catholicism or any doctrinaire religion try to explain how the faux paus promoted by their churches for hundreds of years really arent as absurd as they sound. When the Catholics imprisoned scientists (Galileo) during the dark ages for promoting that Genesis' describing that the planets and sun revolving around the earth was not correct. Or the Mormon church disavowing previous leaders laughable statements that have been disproven. Religion is evolving and constantly trying to cover its path so as to not appear absurd.

  • TYLER
    Jan. 2, 2008 6:21 p.m.

    I like to hear a story about honest Christians like this one. I heard an eye opening comment about how we compare other religions. We should not look at our best characteristics or history and another religion's worst. Compare best to best recieving your sources from people knowledgeable in that religion. (Not from outside sources.)

    I'm ashamed to say that I have sometimes done exactly what the above says not to do. As a member of the LDS church recieving all of this negative attention and hearing twisted lies and half truths has made me realize I shouldn't be hypocritical and should look at all religions fairly. That's my two cents, just thought I'd share.

  • Ron in OC
    Jan. 2, 2008 7:48 p.m.

    I just love it when people I have never met tell me what I believe.

  • Paperboy
    Jan. 2, 2008 8:41 p.m.

    Wow, must really be a dry news week. Or the Deseret Morning News is trying to pull out the stops (maybe even a miracle from the dusty archives?) in the attempt to position the LDS church as mainstream, respected and pragmatic, with the hope of doing something to help salvage Mitt's crumbling presidential campaign.

  • Head Spinning
    Jan. 2, 2008 8:46 p.m.

    You know, I don't care if Jesus was married or not, to 1, 2, or 15 wives. What does it matter? He is the Savior and Redeemer of the world. Yours and mine. I guess at some point in time when we cross the veil we will find out all of these questions, Ya think? PS AND I don't care if you are a Jew, Budhist, Catholic, Presbyterian, Baptist or whatever! I am a member of the Church of JESUS CHRIST of Latter-day saints and have never heard it taught that Jesus was even married. But if he was, so what? Does it change anything? There are so many bitter, hateful people in this world and I've just read a few articles from some of them. Get a life, do something good for someone else. Serve your neighbor---You'll be a lot happier.

  • Jesus was normal
    Jan. 2, 2008 8:58 p.m.

    Polygamy is the evil designs of men. It is no divine practice. It is the man made practice of a self idulging man. These guys have no more potential than that of a great ape. Jesus was not a polygamist. He was normal!

  • Ron in OC
    Jan. 2, 2008 9:22 p.m.

    Ya know what I like about all this. The article was interesting and positive and most of the comments have nothing to do with the article.

  • Mohan
    Jan. 2, 2008 10:19 p.m.

    You guys are funny. Many strange comments here.

    But man, this speech in the tabernacle is HUGE. We will never come to a consensus until after Christ returns, on belief. Until then we will always believe differently. But there is nothing wrong with that. What I like here is people tearing down some pretty huge walls and trying to gain understanding of each others beliefs instead of just saying I am right and you should get out if you don't like it. This is big for Mormons to welcome in a fellow Christian of a different denomination, and was even bigger of Mouw to also come to grips with Mormons. I love it. This is a great day. Don't be upset - he didn't compromise, he gained understanding, something we should all try. If you are upset, you need better understanding yourself. Keep working on it.

  • Idaho Kid
    Jan. 2, 2008 11:16 p.m.

    The problem in these discussions seems to be based on the false assumption that the reproductive act is inherently sinful. The only time when it is is in the case of adultery, fornication and other such abuses of this part of the human experience. If it was sinful, why did God command us to be fruitful and replenish the earth. It seems like we have a contradiction here. Did God say to multiply and at the same time say it is a sin. I don't think The Supreme Being is the author of confusion. I think he leaves that up to some men.

  • to jesus was normal
    Jan. 2, 2008 11:32 p.m.

    abraham issac and jacob practiced polygamy as a commandment from god. it is in the bible

  • Spuds
    Jan. 3, 2008 4:22 a.m.

    I'm enjoying the knee jerk reaction of many who want to vilify the church, but don't know that Moroni told Joseph Smith that the church would grow the more it was opposed. Historically that has been proven, so bring it on!

  • Bookaholic
    Jan. 3, 2008 4:53 a.m.

    Wonderful, spiritual people can have opinions that are wrong. Orson Pratt thought something, and he was a leader in the early church. So what? Doesn't make what he thought correct. It's his OPINION, nothing more.

    Why is it that Mormons have to answer for everything every church leader has ever said, but all other churches and religions get a pass? Methodist's Wesley said the borders of hell are lined with the skulls of infants that died without baptism. The Catholic church has had quite a history from the Inquision, to the sale of indulgences, to married popes, to the pedophilia scandals. All religious groups have odd practices and things in their backgrounds. Why is it that the LDS are the only ones who have to answer for them?

    We love God and try to love and serve others. For this devotion, we're ridiculed and are told we aren't even Christian. Baloney. God knows better.

    This article was a good one. It is nice for the world to be made aware that some decent, thinking evangelicals accept our love and devotion for Christ as legitimate. We don't need the recognition but do appreciate it.

    Thanks for DN for reprinting the article.

  • wow how things have changed
    Jan. 3, 2008 6:10 a.m.

    Before you jump on me for being an anti-mormon,I was born in the Church in 1947 served a mission married in the temple, and have 9 kids all of whom are active. Don't be angry with me because of something you do not want to believe. (Heleman 13:26-28)talks of Samuel the laminitie. I do not profess to be a prophet but Brigham Young, Heber C. Kimball, Orson Hyde, and Orson Pratt were. Just as much as the 12 today are. I was wrong about the Heber C. Kimball quote. It was not him but Orson Hyde (JD 2:210) Before you start condemning the JD read the title page where Brigham Young states how careful they were in compiling these talks, and they were approved by him. Brigham Young
    also states that Jesus was married. (JD 13:309) as did Orson Pratt in the Seer p.172. There are your quotes. There is also the gospel of Phillip (you can find it on the internet). It is an early Christian gospel that was not included in the New Testament. There it states that Jesus was married to Mary Magdalene. In the 40day ministy of Jesus. Hugh Nibley comments on it (fair.org)

  • OneVote
    Jan. 3, 2008 7:14 a.m.

    That explains why they had to close the Tabernacle; to repair the damage. Now it'll withstand hellfire, damnation, and earthquakes.

  • To wow and others
    Jan. 3, 2008 7:20 a.m.

    I'm a member of the church. I served a mission. My family has been in the church since the 1830s. I have # children, all active in the church.

    Please don't quote Orson Hyde, Orson Pratt, Hugh Nibley, or anyone else to tell me what I believe. They were all as human as I and also prone to error and speculation.

    Let me fill you in on a little secret. Most members of the church don't even know who Hugh Nibley is. They also don't know who the two Orsons are and it doesn't matter, since they are not Jesus and do not need to believe in any of these three individuals in order to be saved.

  • Nice
    Jan. 3, 2008 8:34 a.m.

    It's nice to be nice.

  • Perplexed
    Jan. 3, 2008 8:51 a.m.

    Can someone tell me where in the Bible it tells of baptizing babies and what passages tell about Jesus laying down his resurrected body to become a spirit being again? We read prophecies of His coming, His Birth, His life, His death, His resurection, His ascension, and His second coming. But where is His body buried and when did hHe give die again. Wouldn't that (made up) event be important enough to include in the Bible?

  • 2 cents and more
    Jan. 3, 2008 8:55 a.m.

    I read this when it happened a few years ago. I enjoyed reading it then, and am now enjoying forwarding it to every huckalemming who is voting for Huckabee only because he's a Southern Baptist preacher, and thinks LDS are evil cult members. If anyone knows folks in Iowa, forward this to them, and ask them to keep forwarding it on.

  • wow how we have changed
    Jan. 3, 2008 9:40 a.m.

    to wow and others. You write off these men OP, OH, and Nibley as if they have done nothing for the Church. O. Hyde traveled 18 month Israel at the request of Joseph Smith to dedicate the land of Israel for the return of the Jews. He did it without purse or scrip. He was pennyless when he started and pennyless when he came back but the Lord provided for him. Orson Pratt spent his whole life defending the Gospel of Jesus Christ. Hugh Nibley has also spent his life defending the prophet Josep Smith. Yet you pass them off as nothing in your mind. I can not wait until you get to have a talk with each of them and compare what you have done for the Gospel compared to them. good luck with that. what offends me so much with people of your opinion, is you do not realize what these men had to do to get the Church in the position where it now is. what have you done? I reveir these men. I am grateful that they were there when they were needed. they left on missions when ever God called.

  • kjaerbye
    Jan. 3, 2008 9:47 a.m.

    The comment about baptizing babies comes from the Catholic Doctrine of "Original Sin" and I was baptized as a baby at birth Lutheran. However the scriptures does talk about an age of accountability, which the LDS Church and the Church of Christ both believe in, having knowledge to know what the covenant of baptism is and being accountable for one's own sins and not Adams's sins. The Age of accountability is not made up by Joseph Smith; it's talked about in the Hebrew Scriptures of the Old Testament.

  • Aldea
    Jan. 3, 2008 9:57 a.m.

    About Jesus having three wives: Jesus being over the age of 30, may have had one wife, but not three wives. The New Testament writers of the events during Christs days, do not state or indicate his marriage, however some speculate he was married. It was Jewish Custom for men over 30 to be married, I suppose he did practice that custom after all he was born a Jew from the House of David.

  • momof3
    Jan. 3, 2008 9:59 a.m.

    During Moses' time, or Abraham's, or all of the old prophets who have lived, not everything they said became record. Only actual revelation would be recorded since it was hard and time consuming to make their records. Fast forward to modern times where it is not hard to record what people say. Almost everything that has come out of our leaders' mouths since the 1800s has been recorded, whether it was just their "personal opinions" or true LDS doctrine. Everything has been recorded and you can find it all in the abundance of books floating out there. There are many ideas that are "speculated" about, but the church will never put out a doctrine that is pure "speculation".

  • Objective free thought
    Jan. 3, 2008 10:00 a.m.

    20 'some odd' years ago, I became inactive in the church. Coming from a strong LDS family, my family was disappointed, but always supportive of my decision. As I have gotten older, I have been focused on finding truth in my life...why am I here? Where did I come from?...and Where am I going? While I have great respect for all faiths, the LDS church is the only way, in my opinion that you can find these answers (with all due respect). I am not blogging here with an agenda, because I am still inactive, but I pray and seek spiritual guidance everyday, by the way all of us have that option available to us. As a fairly educated man I recently started to write a book, with all of the internet access and information available, it is still quite a challenge for me...and I am drawn to a simple fact...how did a fairly uneducated young man write (if as the naysayers say he did)quite possibly the most complicated book of history of all time. The answer read the B of M seek out the truth and pray!

  • Billy Bob
    Jan. 3, 2008 10:50 a.m.

    Thanks " nice" I agree...It IS nice to be nice

  • Al
    Jan. 3, 2008 11:23 a.m.

    I would agree that we can't take every word spoken by LDS leadership as doctrine. It's sometimes very difficult to keep in mind that these are men just like me with biases and products of their generation. Although they will receive revelation/doctrine, they mostly speak of their own accord taking advantage of their free agency. Sure it would be incredible if these men were infallible and only acted as a mouth piece for God, but that would be too easy and would require no faith.

  • Thank You
    Jan. 3, 2008 11:26 a.m.

    Re: To Thomas
    You are right in saying that Jesus was not ever married. Or at least it would be very very unlikely.
    Men married later in the middle east during and before the life of Christ. About 40 years old is the typical age for marriage of a male. There are several sources for this from literature of the era. (Bible, On Man in The Universe, and others less known.) There can be exceptions to this'rule', for which Jesus doesn't seem to qualify.
    Also, people married relatives, in those days. There is no defined family relationship between Jesus and Mary Magdalene.
    If some of you have been taught to believe Jesus Christ was married by well meaning Institute or Seminary teachers, you have been mistaught.(sorry)
    It is difficult to go into depth about a subject like this in so short a space, but Jesus being a single man during his life time is indeed very very logical.
    So can you tell me how to get started on studying the ministry of Thomas in India, or anything more about this please (if you are still out there!)

  • Errors don't help
    Jan. 3, 2008 11:41 a.m.

    To Laguna:
    You are not the only one to keep repeating the mistaken idea that Galileo was imprisoned, threatened, etc because he said the earth wasn't the center of the universe. Neither did anyone believe the earth was flat when Columbus crossed the ocean. Hermetic /Platonic philosophy was freely taught in Italian universities previous to these men and no one went to prison!
    The argument between the Catholic Church and Galileo was not a science vs religion argument, bur a religion vs religion argument.
    Would anyone like to know what really happened?
    I don't know if this will get printed because it is a little off topic, but the other ones did, so I am giving it a try.

  • laguna
    Jan. 3, 2008 11:54 a.m.

    To Errors,
    If you are of the OPINION that the Catholic church didnt punish scholars and scientists who correctly argued against the churchs errroneous doctrines, then you have attempted to rewrite history.

  • Steve - Re: Thank You 1/3 @11:26
    Jan. 3, 2008 12:18 p.m.

    You do realize that today or at anytime in history, just because many or the majority tend to do something doesn't mean everyone does it too. So I'm sorry... unless you are secretly hiding a time machine you used to go back and see how it really was, you can't state as fact that Jesus was NOT married. He might have been or He might not, nobody today knows for certain.

  • Paul
    Jan. 4, 2008 3:50 p.m.

    final ...

    , and Elder Orson Pratt himself sanctioned the repudiation. (B. H. Roberts, Defense of the Faith and the Saints, Vol.2, p.294)

    The official 1865 repudiation is found here: Messages of the First Presidency, Vol.2, p.238 - p.239

    I find it interesting that the Church repudiated this source in 1865, then again in 1907 (Roberts) and now I need to again in 2008 after another century.

    Another argument that should not be ignored is that Psalms 45:9 may have been referring to Christ only symbolically. These wives may refer to churches while the Queen refers to The Church. This is the position that most modern scholars will take if they are embarrassed by the thought that God might be a polygamist like Abraham, Isaac and Jacob were.