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
Walt Kelly’s Pogo was sure a strange comic strip to become famous.
Actually, Atheists tend to be greens. Certainly all are welcome in the democratic party as we are not the anti-gay christian party. Jews, Buddhists and Muslims prefer the democrats, too. Obama did carry the catholic vote but certainly not the fundy vote.
@Pogo
My father had several Pogo books. I stole a couple of them from him. I also grabbed his Wizard of Id books. He says that he is proud of me for wanting his books so much.
Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter
But Paul, I depend on YOU to tell me the difference, now you get two cookies.
No kidding Paul?!!? Oh my gosh.
From Why Atheists Align with Democrats at atheismresource.com:
“Atheists tend to be more Democratic than Republican. Part of this are the issues the two parties represent, as I’ll discuss at length later, and the fact that Republicans have a more favorable view of religions than Democrats. In other words, as the chart above shows, atheists are more welcome in the Democratic Party (Newport, Gallup Poll, 2006).”
Michael Haz-
Would you be kind enough to share your religious beliefs if you have any? If you do, would you also elaborate if Absolute Truth is part of your beliefs and what is your understanding about the term? Thanks.
Squeeky
“Jack Acid” is one of my favorites!
I am astonished whenever I find someone else has actually heard of it.
Kelly’s attacks on Joe McCarthy are priceless.
http://www.bpib.com/images/kelly9.gif
SWM:
Hence the backslash (“/”) separating the terms.
‘You seem just fine with the religious fundamentalism of atheist socialism/progressive Democrats.” pogo Personally, I know many, many progressive democrats, and none of them are atheists.
@Pogo
You know, you are deceptively intelligent for a possum. Just FWIW, have you ever read the Jack Acid Society Black Book??? I stole it from my father, and he stole it back, sooo I ordered my own copy off Amazon because I couldn’t find it at his house on Father’s Day. Sooo, I stole back the Curiosities of Literature book from him instead.
Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter
As a Catholic I feel it is not my place to criticize and demonize the Mormons. Their religion. Their beliefs. Their history.
Every Mormon I have ever met has been sincere in their beliefs and a model of decorum.
About five years ago the Mormon Church took over the old ILA longshoreman’s hiring hall on Court St. They have events to proselytize and fresh faced young missionaries are much in evidence. They are not obtrusive or annoying but a welcome addition to the neighborhood.
Stories like this are meant to demonize these people of faith. You don’t see a similar “news story” about Mohamed and his child molesting ways. You don’t see an award winning Broadway musical mocking Islam. Why is that?
You know why
Because you have said that you have your own personal moral code, and think everybody should, and that we shouldn’t “impose values” on people.
@ Squeeky
I really love the hypocrisy of a “self appointed arbiter” of what is civil or not, who is Christian or not, who qualifies as being sufficiently Christian telling us not to be judgmental of others, yet being the biggest self appointed judge of all and presuming to lecture everyone else on their failures as Christians and of being uncivil.
I find sanctimonious pretentiousness fairly uncivil in and of itself.
True Christianity is hard. No one can be blamed for falling down in being representatives of their faith. I forgive them. We’re all human after all.
Leszek Kolakowsk:
“There is no need to despair over hypocrisy; we should rather, accept hypocrisy is the testimony to the real social power of those values behind which it hides — the homage that vice pays to virtue, as La Roche-foucauld put it. ”
The left believes in only one sin, hypocrisy from the right, whatever their beliefs.
It’s the old Saul Alinsky rule, making them live up to their rules, knowing it’s impossible.
The left has no rules, so can’t be hypocrites.
So no Annie, I don’t care if you see hypocrites all around you.
Because you are blind.
@Annie
I keep hearing about “hypocrisy” from you, but what are YOU talking about? Because you have said that you have your own personal moral code, and think everybody should, and that we shouldn’t “impose values” on people. Sooo, before anyone can agree with you or disagree, we have to first analyze what your own personal code is. . .
Is YOUR moral code like the Christians, for whom lying is wrong no matter who does it, or is your own personal moral code like the Muslims, for whom it is wrong to lie to other Muslims, but not wrong to lie to non-Muslims??? This is not a trick question, because as a rabid Democrat, who has never voted for a Republican, you belong to a political party where lying is the norm, and OK to get legislation passed, like Obamacare. . .and where is OK to use “a lack of transparency” to fool stupid Americans.
Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter
Rafflaw: ” 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.”
You seem just fine with the religious fundamentalism of atheist socialism/progressive Democrats.
I don’t think it’s fundamentalism you abhor per se, but those who oppose your form of it.
Pogo,
I absolutely DO NOT hate Christians. I do however intensly dislke hypocrites of all stripes. There are Christians that walk the walk, not just talk the talk. The talk that was expressed here today was not Christlike. I was raised in a Christian home, I’ve been around Christians all my life, some are truly trying to live their faith, some just make the motions.
@Annie
You can have compassion and/or love for people who are screwed up. There is nothing wrong with that. I even feel sorry for that poor old stupid thug, Trayvon Martin, who wanted to be a gangsta and got shot dead in the process. But feeling sorry for somebody who chose the wrong path, is a whole lot different from celebrating the wrong path that they are on, or encouraging them to stay on that wrong path.
Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter.
Most Christians would be able to deal with the fact that Jesus was married. After all his Father sent him to fully experience what it meant to be a human being. That would include marriage and possibly even having a child. Although there is no proof or even mention in the Gospels as has been noted it would be consistent with his journey.
So if Jesus had married Mary Magdalene it would not have been such a terrible thing.
Of course there is one thing we can be sure of. That he did not marry Simon Peter. Or John the disciple “that Jesus loved.”
Despite what nonsense you might want to peddle.
8