Jump to content

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

inquiringmind

Monogomy?

Recommended Posts

Why did Adam have only one wife?

Is it possible for a man to commit adultery against a woman?

And why did Jesus say the following (first, when the Pharisees asked Him a question about divorce, and then in answering His disciples)?

Have ye not read, that he who made man at the beginning, made him, male and female. And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife; and they twain shall be one flesh? Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What, therefore, God hath joined together, let no man put asunder. They say unto him, Why did Moses then command to give a writing of divorcement, and to put her away? He said unto them, Moses, because of the hardness of your heats, suffered you to put away your wives; but from the beginning it was not so. And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife, except for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery; and whoso marrieth her that is put away, doth commit adultery. His disciples say unto him, If the case of the man be so with a wife, it is not good to marry. But he said unto them, All cannot receive this saying; it is not for them save to whom it is given. For there are some eunuchs, which were so born from their mother's womb; and there are some eunuchs which were made eunuchs of men; and there be eunuchs, which have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven's sake. He that as able to receive, let him receive my sayings. (Matt. 19:4-12, JS Translation.)

And if marriage (sealing, or plural marriage) is essential to exaltation in the celestial kingdom, why did Isaiah say the following?

Neither let the son of the stranger, that hath joined himself to the Lord, speak, saying, The Lord hath utterly separated me from his people; neither let the eunuch say, Behold, I am a dry tree. For thus saith the Lord unto the eunuchs that keep my sabbaths, and choose the things that please me, and take hold of my covenant; Even unto them will I give in mine house and within my walls a place and a name better than of sons and of daughters; I will give them an everlasting name, that shall not be cut off. (Isa. 56:3-5, JS Translation.)

Share this post


Link to post

Why did Adam have only one wife?

Eve was the only one God gave him in Eden. But we cannot say, definitively, that he had only one wife. The evidence is sparse and the Bible (nor any other scripture) says Eve was the only one.

Lest anyone think we feel Adam had multiple wives, I have never heard this anywhere. I'm only saying we cannot prove it.

Is it possible for a man to commit adultery against a woman?

One does not commit adultery against a woman, the act is with her.

The original Hebrew word for adultery (na?'aph) meant woman who breaks wedlock. A man, under Mosaic Law, could only commit adultery with a woman who was married to another man. If he were married, and had sexual relations with an unmarried woman, it was not adultery, and was considered another marriage for him. If he did not formalize the marriage, her father (or other male relative, if the father were dead) could demand he do so, or get money for the assault on his family honor.

In the case of adultery, both the man and the woman were subject to capital punishment.

Have ye not read, that he who made man at the beginning, made him, male and female. And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife; and they twain shall be one flesh? Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What, therefore, God hath joined together, let no man put asunder. They say unto him, Why did Moses then command to give a writing of divorcement, and to put her away? He said unto them, Moses, because of the hardness of your heats, suffered you to put away your wives; but from the beginning it was not so.

Divorce was not (and is not) part of the great plan. As Christ said, however, when men and women are unable to live the higher law, the Lord "suffers" us to have divorce.

His disciples say unto him, If the case of the man be so with a wife, it is not good to marry. But he said unto them, All cannot receive this saying; it is not for them save to whom it is given. For there are some eunuchs, which were so born from their mother's womb; and there are some eunuchs which were made eunuchs of men; and there be eunuchs, which have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven's sake. He that as able to receive, let him receive my sayings. (Matt. 19:4-12, JS Translation.)

Recall the subject is divorce. The disciples grew up in an era when divorce (for a man) was as simple as saying "I divorce you." All he needed was some rationale for doing it, and it could be "for any reason" (even burning his dinner

Share this post


Link to post

Paul taught:

1 Cor 11:11-12 "Nevertheless, neither is the man without the woman, neither the woman without the man, in the Lord.

For as the woman is of the man, even so is the man also by the woman; but all things of God."

GG

Share this post


Link to post
One does not commit adultery against a woman, the act is with her.

Jesus said a man could commit adultery by divorcing a woman for insufficient cause, and marrying another

A man, under Mosaic Law, could only commit adultery with a woman who was married to another man. If he were married, and had sexual relations with an unmarried woman, it was not adultery, and was considered another marriage for him.

That's kinda the point.

Jesus said that if a man divorced his wife for insufficient cause, and married another woman, he was commiting adultery.

He didn't say that he'd only be commiting adultery if the other woman was already married to another man.

Eunuchs will be given the chance to marry in the millennium, by proxy, just as will everyone who was unable to marry during mortality. Their eternal families will be no less glorious than any others'.

But then why does it say "Even unto them will I give in mine house and within my walls a place and a name better than of sons and of daughters"?

Share this post


Link to post
Jesus said a man could commit adultery by divorcing a woman for insufficient cause, and marrying another.

That has nothing to do with the prepositions.

Adultery, in English, is with a woman, not against her, although we could say that the woman commits adultery against her husband, given the Hebrew word.

This is an issue of linguistics and semantics, not doctrine.

Lehi

Share this post


Link to post
Adultery, in English, is with a woman, not against her, although we could say that the woman commits adultery against her husband, given the Hebrew word

This is an issue of linguistics and semantics, not doctrine.

Even if Jesus was speaking Greek?

Share this post


Link to post
Jesus said that if a man divorced his wife for insufficient cause, and married another woman, he was commiting adultery.

He didn't say that he'd only be commiting adultery if the other woman was already married to another man.

I do not speak Aramaic (and don't know anyone who does, except for Mel Gibson), so I can't really answer that question. All we have is the Greek translation of His words.

But, if we assume that the Aramaic Jesus used was very much like Hebrew, then we see Him making a very significant change to the understanding of those who herd Him. Even the word "adultery" itself was really insufficient to convey this new idea.

He expanded the V commandment, as He had done with others (thou shalt not kill=>don't get angry), to cover additional ground, in this case, men could commit adultery with others beyond the wives of his neighbors.

why does it say "Even unto them will I give in mine house and within my walls a place and a name better than of sons and of daughters"?

Our scriptures say that "all the Father hath shall be given him." That sounds like the answer to me.

Keep in mind that eunuchs were forbidden, under Mosaic Law, for entering the Temple, they could not, for all intents and purposes, worship as Jews. They could not use the Priesthood, if they were Levites or Aaronites.

But, under the greater law of the Gospel, they will have all that the Father hath.

Share this post


Link to post
One does not commit adultery against a woman, the act is with her.

Actually, in the Joseph Smith Translation of Mark 10:9, Jesus clearly said that a man could commit adultery against a woman.

"And he said unto them, Whosoever shall put away his wife and marry another, committeth adultery against her."

Share this post


Link to post
Even if Jesus was speaking Greek?

It is highly unlikely the Jesus was speaking Greek to people who shared the same mother tongue He did: Aramaic.

We know He spoke Aramaic because several times in the Gospels we read the writer translating His words into Greek after giving the transliteration of the original, as here:

41 And he took the damsel by the hand, and said unto her, Talitha cumi; which is, being interpreted, Damsel, I say unto thee, arise.
The same thing happened on the cross:
46 And about the ninth hour Jesus cried with a loud voice, saying, Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani? that is to say, My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?

Lehi

Share this post


Link to post

I do not speak Aramaic (and don't know anyone who does, except for Mel Gibson), so I can't really answer that question. All we have is the Greek translation of His words.

You know Mel Gibson? Far out!

:P

Share this post


Link to post

Again (whether He was speaking Aramaic or Greek), He said a man could commit adultery against a woman.

And he said unto them, Whosoever shall put away his wife and marry another, committeth adultery against her. (Mark 10::9, JST.)

Share this post


Link to post

Actually, in the Joseph Smith Translation of Mark 10:9, Jesus clearly said that a man could commit adultery against a woman.

"And he said unto them, Whosoever shall put away his wife and marry another, committeth adultery against her."

Zing!

Anyway, as far as the eunuchs mentioned in the Matthew you quoted, I don't see what your point is.

A eunuch from his birth must necessarily be someone who is in some fashion born with any of the birth defects to the generative organs that make it difficult if not impossible to fulfill a normal male sexual role. A eunuch made by men is a man who was forcibly deprived of sexual organs, either through some form of non-elective surgery or due to an injury or disease. A eunuch for the kingdom of heaven's sake I take to be someone who may suffer from SSA such that a normal heterosexual relationship is difficult if not impossible. Those who must live their lives under such a condition are in a similar place to those who lived and died having never heard the Gospel and thus never had a chance to accept it. Except for the hints about salvation for the dead you can find there, you won't find anything in the Bible to give comfort to such as these, but LDS doctrine does provide it: all such who would have accepted the Gospel in its fulness, to include the blessings of family, will be able to receive it for the Eternity, through the love and the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ.

Share this post


Link to post
A eunuch for the kingdom of heaven's sake I take to be someone who may suffer from SSA such that a normal heterosexual relationship is difficult if not impossible.

What is SSA?

Share this post


Link to post

Never mind.

I googled "SSA sexual," and I found out what it is.

I take it you believe that homosexuals are born, and that it's not a (sinful) life style choice?

Share this post


Link to post

Never mind.

I googled "SSA sexual," and I found out what it is.

I take it you believe that homosexuals are born, and that it's not a (sinful) life style choice?

Yeah, I believe their tendencies are inborn. But it is a sinful lifestyle choice if you choose to live it, that is, if you take action. But it's not sinful to be born with that tendency.

Oops.... I guess I went a tiny bit off topic XD.

Share this post


Link to post

If it's theoretically o.k. for a married man to take additinal wives (with or without his wife's approval), why did Paul say "the husband hath not power of his own body, but the wife"? (1 Cor. 7:4, JST.)

And if marriage is essential to exultation, why did he write "I say therefore to the unmarried and widows, It is good for them if they abide even as I"?.

(1 Cor. 7:8, JST.)

Share this post


Link to post

If it's theoretically o.k. for a married man to take additinal wives (with or without his wife's approval), why did Paul say "the husband hath not power of his own body, but the wife"? (1 Cor. 7:4, JST.)

Because technichally he has to ask her approval beforehand (it's in D&C 132). This is for the New Law though.

And if marriage is essential to exultation, why did he write "I say therefore to the unmarried and widows, It is good for them if they abide even as I"?.

Because everyone in the highest degree of the celestial will be married either in life or by proxy by the end of our time. Even the widows and unmarried.

The quote by the way, is referring to abstaining from sexual relations, I believe. Not sure though.

Hope I helped =).

Best Wishes,

TAO

Share this post


Link to post

Never mind.

I googled "SSA sexual," and I found out what it is.

I take it you believe that homosexuals are born, and that it's not a (sinful) life style choice?

I'm not insistent on that premise, but I am sure it is the case for the majority. I recall seeing a documentary years and years ago in which one man questioned said right out that he had in fact made a choice to be a practicing homosexual. I assume that if there is one then there are others.

As to the sinfulness of it, I'm sure you've run into the notion that SSA is not in itself sinful, only if the attraction is followed up in practice.

Share this post


Link to post

Never mind.

I googled "SSA sexual," and I found out what it is.

I take it you believe that homosexuals are born, and that it's not a (sinful) life style choice?

Elder Packer said in conference, "Some suppose that they were pre- set and cannot overcome what they feel are inborn tendencies toward the impure and unnatural. Not so. Why would our Heavenly Father do that to anyone? Remember, he is our Father."

Clearly, Elder Packer, a chosen apostle in this dispensation, believes that people are not born with homosexual tendencies. This is evident in his use of the words "what they feel." Heavenly Father wouldn't inflict impure and unnatural homosexual tendencies on anyone.

If it's good enough for an apostle, it's good enough for me!

Share this post


Link to post

Elder Packer said in conference, "Some suppose that they were pre- set and cannot overcome what they feel are inborn tendencies toward the impure and unnatural. Not so. Why would our Heavenly Father do that to anyone? Remember, he is our Father."

Clearly, Elder Packer, a chosen apostle in this dispensation, believes that people are not born with homosexual tendencies. This is evident in his use of the words "what they feel." Heavenly Father wouldn't inflict impure and unnatural homosexual tendencies on anyone.

If it's good enough for an apostle, it's good enough for me!

Steadfast... his statement was towards the 'cannot overcome', not the 'preborn tendencies'.

In other words, he was saying it is always possible to overcome them, not that there wasn't preborn tendencies. He was encouraging them not to give up, but I don't think he was saying it wasn't preborn.

Share this post


Link to post
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...