“Now there was actually a marriage; and if Jesus was not the bridegroom on that occasion, please tell who was. If any man can show this, and prove that it was not the Savior of the world, then I will acknowledge I am in error. We say it was Jesus Christ who was married, to be brought into the relation whereby he could see his seed, before he was crucified. ‘Has he indeed passed by the nature of angels, and taken upon himself the seed of Abraham, to die without leaving a seed to bear his name on the earth?’ [he does not reference the source of his own quote here]. No. But when the secret is fully out, the seed of the blessed shall be gathered in, in the last days; and he who has not the blood of Abraham flowing in his veins, who has not one particle of the Savior’s in him, I am afraid is a stereotyped Gentile, who will be left out and not be gathered in the last days; for I tell you it is the chosen of God, the seed of the blessed, that shall be gathered. I do not despise to be called a son of Abraham, if he has a down wives; or to be called a brother, a son, a child of the Savior, if he had Mary, and Martha, and several others, as wives; and though he did cast seven devils out of one of them, it is all the same to me.”

Read it here at: http://www.journalofdiscourses.org/volume-02/

If this teaching has been repudiated, then so be it, but I would like proof from you that this is so. But even if, it is clear that this was an acceptable position, which, from his first person plural pronoun usage (i.e. “WE say it was Jesus Christ who was married…”), and position in this esteemed and important collection of LDS teachings, makes it an acceptable, if not openly taught position in LDS history.

If you are going to teach about baptism, then teach about baptism. The quote above is false. There is no LDS teaching that says that Jesus got married and had children. If you are going to state that then you must state the source in which you found this doctrine. Make sure that your facts are right before making libelous statements.

Also, the link to “mormon baptism” leads to nothing.

John 4:2 tells us that well before the Great Commission that the disciples baptized, “Jesus himself was not baptizing, but His disciples were.” The Commission was given to the disciples/Apostles, but it must extend to the church as well, since it finishes, “to the very end of the age” (Matt 28:20) and not one disciple lived that long. In terms of the three-fold “name,” a lot of people make a big deal about this, some even become legalistic about it, which I think is unfortunate. Of course, the Father has a name in the OT (Yahweh/Jehovah/I-AM), and the Son has many names (including Yahweh, Messiah, The LORD Our Righteousness, Prince of Peace, Jesus, etc.), as does the Spirit (Holy Spirit, Spirit of the LORD, etc.), but when I call the man who gave birth to me “dad” or “father” that is also a name that he takes on.

The point of Jesus’ statement, however, is that God is one and many. That is, there is one God in three persons. This is a classic statement whereby we deduce the Trinitarian nature of God. On one occasion, while Paul was somewhere near Ephesus (Acts 19), he came upon a group of people who had been baptized into the name of John the Baptist. They had not received the Holy Spirit, and so Paul baptizes them into the name of Jesus. The idea here has nothing to do with one name (Jesus) vs. three names (Father, Son, Holy Spirit), but with old vs. new. John’s ministry was the last of the Old Testament, but Jesus’ ministry ushers in a new covenant. To be baptized into John is to stay in types and shadows. To be baptized into Jesus is to have the Spirit dwell in the temple of one’s body, so that you may serve the new temple with pleasing acts of sacrifice (Romans 12:1-2). Of course, to be baptized in the name of Jesus to receive the Spirit is also to receive the Father, for it says “Whoever confesses the Son, receives the Father” (1 John 2:23). But the Church has traditionally used the formula given by Jesus in order to be clear about those things, so that heretics can’t perform unbiblical baptisms, i.e. baptisms done in the name of some cultish view of God.