Since Christ was identified as the "Stem", it is interesting to note that the "Stem" was to have posterity; according to Isaiah - "there shall come forth a Rod out of the Stem of Jesse and a Branch shall grow out of his roots."
Orson Hyde, an early leader of the Mormon Church taught that Jesus married Martha and more than one Mary.
He wrested biblical support that Jesus married and had children from the suffering servant passage of Isaiah. In Isaiah 53:10 it is prophesied: "He shall see his offspring." These words were interpreted as a literal description of Jesus, who would be born centuries later.
A "confession" by one of Brigham Young's wives indicates that the founder of the Mormon colony in Utah agreed with Hyde:
Brigham Young, in one of his sermons . . . declared that,
"Jesus Christ was a practical polygamist; Mary and Martha, the sisters of Lazarus, were his plural wives, and Mary Magdalene was another. Also, the bridal feast at Cana of Galilee, where Jesus turned the water into wine, was on the occasion of one of his own marriages."
What appears to be his single greatest contribution to this discussion is the presentation on Psalm 45, as quoted by Orson Pratt:
Indeed, the Psalmist, David, prophesies in particular concerning the wives of the Son of God. We quote from the English version of the Bible, translated about three hundred and fifty years ago: "All thy garments smell of myrrh, and aloes, and cassia; when thou comest out of the ivory palaces, where they have made thee glad, King's daughters were among thine honorable WIVES; upon thy right hand did stand the Queen in a vesture of gold Ophir." (Psalm 45:8-9) That this passage has express reference to the Son of God and His wives, will be seen by reading the sixth and seventh verses which are as follows: "Thy throne, O God, is forever and ever; the sceptre of thy kingdom is a right sceptre. Thou lovest righteousness, and hatest wickedness; therefore God, thy God, hath anointed thee with the oil of gladness above thy fellows." This Being, whom the Psalmist here calls God, is represented in the next verses as having "honorable wives".
It should be recalled that Hebrews 1:8-9 treats Psalm 45 as a Messianic prophecy, as Pratt continues:
Paul applies the words of the Prophet David to the Son of God, to the anointed Messiah, who is called God, and whose "throne is forever and ever." Let it be remembered then, that the Son of God is expressly represented as having "honourable wives". King James' translators were not willing that this passage should have a literal translation, according to the former English rendering, lest it should give countenance to polygamy; therefore, they altered the translation to honorable women instead of wives; but any person acquainted with the original can see that the first translators have given the true rendering of that passage.
Support for Pratt's assertion are found in facsimile copies of Psalm 45(scroll down) from The Geneva Bible (the Bible of Calvin and many of the Reformers) and from an Anglican Bible used before the King James Version. All of them do render v. 9 as "honorable wives," rather than "honorable women."
Notwithstanding the Queen is numbered among the "honorable wives" of the Son of God, yet she is called upon to worship Him as her Lord. If her husband were a mere man, she would not be exhorted to worship him. . .(Orson Pratt, The Seer, p. 159-160)
Psalm 45 appears to be the most significant argument of a married Jesus which has been offered thus far; yet it presents, seemingly, not just a married Jesus, but a polygamous Jesus, as well. This idea is troubling to the modern mind. It was troubling to the minds of the later Church Fathers. That was why they interpreted these texts allegorically. They acknowledged that Christ was a polygamist, but only in a symbolic sense. They saw these Old Testament wives as figures of the Church and not as real women who would be married to the Messiah. Pratt failed to provide any hermeneutical rule as to why we should literalize these texts. Paul allegorizes Messianic prophecies (Galatians 4:22-26). Why should they not be so here? The Mormon commentator has failed to explain how we are to know which prophecies are to be taken literally and which ones are allegorical. It is because their tradition does not provide a consistent rule of hermeneutics. Instead, they must rely upon the...spiritual states of their prophetic leaders for guidance.
