For those who love to follow the marriages of the rich and famous, this week was a real doozy. In a new book, researchers are claiming evidence that Jesus married Mary Magdalene and had two sons. In the meantime, a new publication on the website of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints says that Church founder Joseph Smith had as many as 40 wives including one who was only 14 years old.
The findings in the new book “The Lost Gospel,” by Professor Barrie Wilson and writer Simcha Jacobovici seems like something out of “The Da Vinci Code.” It is based on the transcript of an ancient manuscript which tells the story of Jesus’s two sons and his marriage to Mary. The manuscript dates back to 570 AD and written in Syriac — a Middle Eastern literary language used between the 4th and 8th centuries and related to Aramaic, the language spoken by Jesus. It was written on animal skin or vellum and has been siting in the archives of the British Library for about 20 years after being held since 1847 at the British Museum (which bought it from a dealer who said he had obtained it from the ancient St Macarius Monastery in Egypt). Jacobovici, an Israeli-Canadian film-maker, and Wilson, a professor of religious studies in Toronto, decided to reexamine the text and believe that it contains a missing fifth gospel and confirms not just the long debate marriage to Mary but progeny of Jesus.
The news on the plural marriages of Joseph Smith is remarkable not only for its disclosure but its source. The LDS Church has always been highly reluctant to discuss the status of Smith as a polygamous. However, it was the Church that released the detailed account this month. It is a refreshing openness from the LDS leadership on a subject that has always been a matter of discomfort. The research suggests that Smith took his first “plural wife,” Fanny Alger, in the mid-1830s. There was a distinction drawn between bonds for this life, which included full matrimonial relations, and partnerships that would exist only in eternity in such marriages.
The essay, “Plural Marriage in Kirtland and Nauvoo,” notes that “[m]any details about the early practice of plural marriage are unknown. Plural marriage was introduced among the early Saints incrementally, and participants were asked to keep their actions confidential. They did not discuss their experiences publicly or in writing until after the Latter-day Saints had moved to Utah and church leaders had publicly acknowledged the practice.”
Researchers believe that most of those sealed for eternity to Smith were between ages 20 and 40. The wives included Helen Mar Kimball, daughter of Joseph’s close friends Heber C. and Vilate Murray Kimball, who was [14.]” It was lawful to marry girls at the age during that period.
As was raised in our Sister Wives litigation (which is now on appeal), the LDS changed its position on polygamy when Utah became a state. In 1890, President Wilford Woodruff, the faith’s fourth prophet-leader, issued the “Manifesto,” which led to the end of the practice. That led to a split and the continued division between the LDS and FLDS, a small group that believes that polygamy is an essential part of the religion. The LDS Church remains opposed to plural marriages.
Source: Salt Lake Tribune
Ah, the ‘no true Scotsman’ fallacy, in clerical robes.
@ raf
I understand that all Catholics should be interested/concerned/involved/critical/supportive of The Church. This is how we work things out and how it changes over time.
I’m not saying people of other faiths or sects should not voice their opinions. I’m just curious as to why they seem to think so often about the Catholic Church and why others of those who are obviously anti religion or anti Christianity, seem to feel that they should insert themselves into an internal Catholic Church issue which doesn’t affect anyone other than Catholics.
I sense not actual concern about the Catholic Church but some sort of sick glee at the process when things are in disarray. Concern trolling if you will.
http://www.wisegeek.com/what-is-concern-trolling.htm#didyouknowout
Why do you hate Christians, Annie?
Clearly you do hate them. Why?
No I make observations. I know false Christianity from true Christianity Pogo.
Annie – is unChristianity your word of the day?
Annie, your habit of dissembling and misrepresentation gives me no interest in your accusations. You throw out such claims such as ‘unChristian’ like confetti.
So Pogo, has a voice from heaven told you the meaning of life yet?
“Ultimately it doesn’t matter as long as one keeps reaching for the right goals. The right goals are found within as well as without religion.”
No, they aren’t.
Atheism cannot answer the key questions of human existence (e.g., why are we here, what is the meaning of life, why is there something rather than nothing,…), except with a spectacularly unsatisfying nihilism.
SWM, maybe he means hypocrisy is a sin?
Nope Pogo, just pointing out the obvious. If you want to call yourself Christians, feel free, but you also then open yourself up to people calling you on your unChristian behavior.
Such are the wages of sin, SWM.
Heh. what?
Annie, yo
Your tu quoque is showing.
Michael, et al. If you are interested in this subject, I highly recommend anything from John Dominic Crossan. His “Historical Jesus” is long and has some slow parts, but it is an excellent scholarly discussion, using many different texts near the first hundred years of AD.
Such are the wages of sin, SWM.
Heh.
SWM, I guess it’s how they show their ‘faith’. I think it serves a purpose of sorts, it reveals the inner workings of certain personality types, most of those personality ypes adhere to conservatism and libertarianism. It’s uncanny.
Haz,
I was raised a Christian and at the age of 15 reality, for me, set in. I ignored the absence, ridiculed the believers, then realized that I was up sht creek without a paddle. I missed the closed circuit. I envied those whose circuit was closed and answered, meaning no disrespect. I have, after years, come to understand that there are two poles for people, the questions and the answers. We all are distributed in between. If I could believe in Christianity, as I’ve seen some do and with great admiration, I would. However, as much as I have tried, I cannot get past the reality that it is humanity that has created religion and not the other way around.
Ultimately it doesn’t matter as long as one keeps reaching for the right goals. The right goals are found within as well as without religion. The same degree of confusion is also found on both sides of the argument.
My main problem with religion is that, regardless of what the religious say, it separates us into ‘chosen ones’, ‘believers’, ‘non believers’, etc. Each group seems to think/believe that it is just a little closer to the truth/god, whatever. I believe that the godhead is reached when each of us tie directly into all. It’s not perfect, answers no questions, but might just stop the carnage.
DBQ,
As a Catholic who was educated by the Benedictine sisters, I do care about what the Pope is trying to do and I believe that all Catholics should speak up about the problems within the Church and their solutions.
As to other religions and people voicing their opinions, I could have sworn we still have the right to speak our minds on this blog and anywhere else. It is my concern when religious fundamentalists want to exchange the Constitution for their version of the Bible, even if I am not one of their believers.
These people treat you terribly, Annie.
Bye! Have a nice day.
The Catholic Church was extremely powerful in ways that went beyond religion. They are less powerful now, but still influence millions of people, therefore people of other faiths and secular people are still interested in the Church, Christianity and it’s influences.
It’s been fun, but I don’t spend my day in front of the computer.
Carry on.