Longish answer: Funny you should ask. Historically there has been some widespread speculation about that, particularly with respect to Mary Magdalene. Thanks in part to The DaVinci Code, the issue has become more a part of popular culture in recent years. It’s a fascinating debate, filled with all kinds of gnostic gospels and symbolism and things.
The LDS Church has no official statement about the subject (despite some speculation by early Church leaders in the affirmative). The Bible doesn’t say He was, the Book of Mormon doesn’t say He was, and neither does the book of Doctrine and Covenants. But—and I’m hoping I speak for the majority here—I wouldn’t be at all surprised to find out He is, especially considering that we believe marriage and family to be a central and necessary aspect of full happiness in the eternities. So, (purely my own opinion) I personally think He probably is, but I don’t think anyone now living knows for sure.
Incidentally, one of my favorite things about believing in continuing revelation and modern day prophets is that I have a good deal of hope that questions like these will be answered in the future through a prophet. We don’t have to claim to know everything about everything now because the gospel is living and being clarified and added to all the time. It’s a luxury that’s somewhat unique to being LDS, and I like it.
The simple answer to the question is yes, but this is no place for a simple answer. Let’s expand the question to: “What is the religion’s stand on divorce?” The answer in this case is: The church wishes couples would work through their problems and stay married, but accepts the fact that divorce happens.
Marriage is a multi-level arrangement. In our current society it is a symbol of true love, the establishment of a new household, a legal partnership, and an economic contractual relationship. In other cultures a marriage may be the combining of two families households, or the woman may be nominally sold into the keeping of her husband and his family. Due to the uneven or unequal potential in the marriage relationship, religions and social customs have attempted to modify the power of the husband over the wife. For example:
” Under Jewish law a man can divorce a woman for any reason or for no reason. The Talmud specifically states that a man can divorce a woman because she spoiled his dinner or simply because he finds another woman more attractive, the woman’s consent to the divorce is not required…This does not mean that Judaism takes divorce lightly. Many aspects of Jewish law discourage divorce… According to the Torah, divorce is accomplished simply by writing a bill of divorce, handing it to the wife, and sending her away. To prevent husbands from divorcing their wives recklessly or without proper consideration, the rabbis created complex rules regarding the process of writing the document, delivery, and acceptance. A competent rabbinical authority should be consulted for any divorce” (Judaism 101: Divorce).
When Jesus was being tempted by the Pharisees (Matthew 19), they asked him if it was lawful for a man to put away his wife for every cause. He answered with two important statements; in verse 4 he replies, “Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female.” And then in verse 8, “He saith unto them, Moses because of the hardness of your hearts suffered you to put away your wives: but from the beginning it was not so.” [“Putting away” was another term for giving the wife a writing of divorcement.]
From his reply one could get the insight that God didn’t make one sex to rule over the other, he made them both, male and female and that what Jesus was hinting at was that equal regard should be given to both. From the second comment we can see that the cultural beliefs were pretty deeply embedded among the Jews and they probably weren’t ready for the introduction of a doctrine of equality of the sexes.
In our enlightened culture we have legally, at least, attempted to deal with both sexes equally. In the last 100 years laws have changed in most countries to allow marriages to be dissolved, the immediate result is generally a rapid increase in divorce as people free themselves from relationships that were not acceptable to one or both partners. Currently in America 50% of all marriages end in divorce. In a talk by Elder Dallin H. Oaks, he tells of the sorry situation in the Philippines:
“When a marriage is dead and beyond hope of resuscitation, it is needful to have a means to end it. I saw examples of this in the Philippines. Two days after their temple marriage, a husband deserted his young wife and has not been heard from for over 10 years. A married woman fled and obtained a divorce in another country, but her husband, who remained behind, is still married in the eyes of the Philippine law. Since there is no provision for divorce in that country, these innocent victims of desertion have no way to end their married status and go forward with their lives” (Divorce, Dallin H. Oaks)
A cornerstone in Mormon doctrine is the concept of the free agency of the individual. If the church were to make a hard and fast rule or policy condemning divorce then members of the church would be in similar circumstances as people in the Philippines. They wouldn’t be able to remain members in good standing while attempting to deal with life’s problems that a bad marriage might present. The church has increasingly spoken out on the issue of divorce. Elder Oaks continues:
“I have felt impressed to speak about divorce. This is a sensitive subject because it evokes such strong emotions from persons it has touched in different ways. Some see themselves or their loved ones as the victims of divorce. Others see themselves as its beneficiaries. Some see divorce as evidence of failure. Others consider it an essential escape hatch from marriage. In one way or another, divorce touches most families in the Church. Whatever your perspective, please listen as I try to speak plainly about the effects of divorce on the eternal family relationships we seek under the gospel plan. I speak out of concern, but with hope.”
Many other leaders have spoken on the subject, for further material please go to LDS.org and search under “divorce”. A general attitude of the church leaders is that two rational people should be able to work through problems if they pray for guidance, are humble, and are willing to work hard to preserve their marriage. As Elder Oaks says, “A good marriage does not require a perfect man or a perfect woman. It only requires a man and a woman committed to strive together toward perfection.” However it is not advocated that a person should stay in a marriage that is abusive or dangerous. Since the church has emphasized family so much in the last half century there is a feeling that divorced people are somehow failures and don’t fit the mold. In the past decade there has been a greater effort toward greater inclusion and acceptance of people who are divorced.
Temple marriage adds yet another level in the complex relationship of a marriage. It secures for the married partners certain blessings and expectations, including the promise that the marriage will last beyond the grave. Marital fidelity is stressed and expected. Sadly, some of these marriages end up in divorce as well. Individuals that have gotten a civil divorce can also apply for a temple cancelation of their marriage. For anyone in that situation your local bishop can provide you with more information. For those not in that situation, don’t worry about it, just live up to the covenants made, whether civil or religious. Give 100% to improving the marriage, treat your partner with respect and love, and you will grow as an individual as well as a couple in the greatest adventure you’ll ever embark on.
Answer: NO. From the Book of Mormon, “[The Lord] inviteth them all to come unto him and partake of his goodness; and he denieth none that come unto him, black and white, bond and free, male and female; and he remembereth the heathen; and all are alike unto God, both Jew and Gentile” (2 Nephi 26:33).
Racism in all its forms is disgusting. It is an evil wholly at odds with the gospel of Jesus Christ and has a pernicious effect on society. Those members of the LDS Church and other faiths that have race-superiority issues (which they often try to base on scripture or statements of church leaders) are in sin.
However, such people in the Church are few and far between. My personal experience in the Church has been a wholly positive one. I have attended church services in Brazil, China, Mongolia, Germany, and in various congregations in the United States and have witnessed firsthand the unity that the gospel of Jesus Christ brings as people of varying ethnicity worship together. Growing up I had a black foster sister. Admittedly, Mikayla was in the minority attending church with my family in the predominantly white state of Utah. Naturally, Mikayla would ask questions about it. But not once in the years I sat beside her in the chapel pews did I witness any form of racism against her. I love that. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is a multicultural church (more members live outside the U.S. than within) welcoming sons and daughters of God of all ethnicities.
I am willing to admit there are problems. Racism is a resilient poison that people in the U.S. and elsewhere have had difficulty purging. Just because overt acts of racism don’t occur publicly often doesn’t mean it isn’t present beneath the surface. And yet I think the Church is doing well. Plus, we can hardly point a finger at others; are any of us truly free of hurtful prejudice of any sort? Let’s pray we all continue to do better. Do better together.
Next topic:Why was priesthood denied to black male members of the church prior to 1978?
Our age of click-and-publish internet ramblings has brought with it a barrage of ill-supported commentaries which force the modern reader to be a skeptic of everything he or she reads. In light of this, I have tried hard to cut through the haze and get an accurate answer to this controversial and sensitive question. The answer I found: there is no satisfactory answer.
Some clamor that the priesthood ban was a product of traditional racism in early America; that it was a church policy based on unrighteous social norms. They have their evidences. Some insist that it was a divinely inspired command from God. They have their evidences. Still others claim it was a policy implemented by the Church based on correct doctrinal principles. Likewise, they have their evidences. The Church itself hasn’t said anything official and definitive on the subject. A paucity of facts invites a diversity of opinion. As far as I am concerned, it also makes any opinion on the subject mere speculation.
What I do know is that a prophet of God received a revelation on Thursday, June 1st, 1978 that enabled all worthy male members of the Church to receive the priesthood. History shows that it was a day of rejoicing. And it wasn’t the first of its kind. It was reminiscent of the New Testament scene where Peter told the new members of the Church that God had revealed to him that the gospel of Christ was now to be preached to the Gentiles. It was a policy change in the church: a policy change God gave (as He often does) without explanation. Acts 11:18 gives their reaction to Peter’s news, “When they heard these things, they held their peace, and glorified God.”
In closing I say to white members of the church: Be careful in how you explain the priesthood ban to yourself and others. Perhaps Alma Allred in his essay “The Traditions of Their Fathers: Myth versus Reality in LDS Scriptural Writings” (found in the book Black and Mormon cited below) was near the truth when he urged white members to, instead of looking for what blacks did to receive the ban, look at themselves to make sure they were not the cause.
And to all members of the Church and other curious truth seekers: if it really bothers you, do the research. Come to your own conclusions. But remember that there aren’t always definitive answers. God moves in mysterious ways. Our Old Testament friend Naaman was confused when he was commanded to go wash in Jordan seven times to be made clean (2 Kings 5:10). God didn’t explain but he had faith and did it anyway. There are plenty of things I don’t understand, yet I can get by with the limited light I have. I do try to learn all that I can-I am not satisfied with ignorance. But I recognize that the ignorance and incomplete understanding that remain with me are mine and not God’s.
This takes you to an official church site touching on the subject.
Suggested further reading:
Bringhurst, Newell G. and Smith, Darron T. Black and Mormon. Urbana: University of Illinois Press, 2004.
Bringhurst, Newell G. Saints, Slaves, and Blacks: The Changing Place of Black People within Mormonism. Westport Conn.: Greenwood Press, 1981.
Embry, Jessie L. Black Saints in a White Church: Contemporary African American Mormons. Salt Lake City: Signature Books, 1993.
Lund, John Lewis. The Church and the Negro: A Discussion of Mormons, Negroes and the Priesthood. Salt Lake City: Paramount Publishers, 1967.
Taggart, Stephen G. Mormonism’s Negro Policy: Social and Historical Origin. Salt Lake City: University of Utah Press, 1970.
Yes, we do believe in the Old Testament. The Old Testament is full of symbolism and prophecies that support the New Testament’s testimony of Jesus Christ and point to our days as well. It may be difficult to understand at times, but with careful study, the whole of the Bible has been a wonderful source of inspiration in my life. It has a long history of inspiration and continues to inspire people today. I’d like to address a bit of its history and content as well as what we believe concerning the Bible.
The Bible (from the Greek biblia, meaning “books”) is a collection of writings by many authors collected and compiled over the course of a many centuries. The two parts, the Old and New Testaments, are separate and distinct from one another. The Old Testament is comprised of histories and personal writings of prophets and the New Testament is a collection of some of the writings of early Christian leaders. A prophet of the Old Testament such as Isaiah, for example, would have a vision, write it down and it would be eventually compiled with his other writings. Isaiah had a vision of the throne of God and His glory which became Isaiah chapter 6. Isaiah had many visions, teachings and life experiences, some of which make up the 66 chapters in his book in the Bible. Jeremiah had his visions and teachings as did Ezekiel, Amos, Habakkuk, Nahum, Malachi and other inspired men, including prophets mentioned in the Bible whose books are not available to us. All of those teachings were given to the people living at the time for the purpose of reminding them of the Lord their God. As often as they forgot, the Lord sent prophets to remind them of His will toward them. This was usually to persuade the people to abandon the worship of false gods and return to obedience and service to the only true and living God.
The New Testament picks up chronologically over 400 years after the last prophet of the Old Testament, Malachi. It begins with a book written by a man named Matthew, whom we later learn to be an apostle personally chosen by Jesus. Matthew gives us his testimony concerning the gospel (a word meaning “good news,” which is the good news of Christ’s atonement) and the coming of Jesus Christ, His ministry, teachings and death. Matthew quotes scripture from the Old Testament many times to support his testimony that Jesus was truly the Messiah and Savior of all mankind. The next book, authored by Mark, offers another testimony of the same Jesus Christ. As does Luke and also John, the beloved. Those four books make up everything we know about the life and ministry of the mortal Jesus Christ and they are all testimonies of His divinity, His life and His Atonement. After the book of Acts, which tells a small amount about the early church and the missionary effort put forth by those early Christians, we have a collection of letters sent by church leaders, mostly Paul, to the scattered congregations. The last book, Revelation or Apocalypse, is a vision received and recorded by John. All these testimonies, books and letters, as well as many others that existed then, were circulating among the people. Which of these documents were valid and doctrine were defined to be canon around the fourth century A.D., leading to the particular collection we have today.
Is the Bible itself perfect? Unfortunately, no. There are many variations and translations of the Bible, some of which are vastly different from others. And if it were perfect, wouldn’t we all understand it to mean the same thing? How could there be so many different opinions on what the truth of God really is? This is precisely why God did not cease with revelation. He did not give up on us.
So then, what is the Bible? In a nutshell, it is the testimony of prophets among the Jewish people. It is a record. It is a description of Jesus Christ and a testimony that He is the way to eternal life. It describes a perfect being, His perfect gospel and His perfect way. All the prophets since Adam have given their testimonies concerning Christ and His gospel. To receive anyone’s testimony of Christ is surely a great blessing. The Book of Mormon is also a blessing like that. It is another such description or testimony of Christ written by prophets not among the Jews, but among other peoples across the world. With both the Bible and the Book of Mormon, we can gather a clearer image of what the Lord truly desires of us.
The Lord follows every apostasy with a new dispensation and a restoration of authority. Here is a short film produced by the Church which shows how the current dispensation was opened through the young man, Joseph Smith.
This is the second half of the same film.
“Ask, and it shall be given you; seek, and ye shall find; knock, and it shall be opened unto you” (Matthew 7:7).
Heavenly Father will answer your prayers, too. Ask Him whether Joseph Smith was a prophet.
Q. Was He [Jesus] married?
“When a marriage is dead and beyond hope of resuscitation, it is needful to have a means to end it. I saw examples of this in the Philippines. Two days after their temple marriage, a husband deserted his young wife and has not been heard from for over 10 years. A married woman fled and obtained a divorce in another country, but her husband, who remained behind, is still married in the eyes of the Philippine law. Since there is no provision for divorce in that country, these innocent victims of desertion have no way to end their married status and go forward with their lives” (
