Jesus's statements on marriage

[kryoung1983]

I have some very close friends that are German Baptist. Essentially Anabaptist group and a very devout family. The father is a far better man then me, but over and over again the topic of remarriage has come up. (even though I am 34 and haven't been married once!) The topic has come up in numerous conversations in which he has stated that remarriage is adultery and it has always been viewed this way including within early Christianity. He quotes such scriptures as Mark 10:11-12 "

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

 And if a woman shall put away her husband, and be married to another, she committeth adultery."

The topic on this has come up literally more times then I can count since it somehow comes  up every time I visit the family. I have known them a few years. I figured I should probably come to some understanding of how I can give an intelligent response to this. Does anyone have any ideas. Both in terms of the scriptures and in terms of early Christianity. 

 

 

[Bobbieaware]

1 hour ago, kryoung1983 said:

I have some very close friends that are German Baptist. Essentially Anabaptist group and a very devout family. The father is a far better man then me, but over and over again the topic of remarriage has come up. (even though I am 34 and haven't been married once!) The topic has come up in numerous conversations in which he has stated that remarriage is adultery and it has always been viewed this way including within early Christianity. He quotes such scriptures as Mark 10:11-12 "

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

 And if a woman shall put away her husband, and be married to another, she committeth adultery."

The topic on this has come up literally more times then I can count since it somehow comes  up every time I visit the family. I have known them a few years. I figured I should probably come to some understanding of how I can give an intelligent response to this. Does anyone have any ideas. Both in terms of the scriptures and in terms of early Christianity. 

 

 

First of all, the Lord made an exception to what your friends might mistakenly think is an absolutely inflexible, hard and fast rule. He said:

9 And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery. (Matthew 19)

So the Savior taught divorce and remarriage is permissible as long as the divorce action of a faithful spouse is precipitated by the disloyalty of a cheating spouse.

Edited November 13, 2017 by Bobbieaware

[theplains]

8 hours ago, Bobbieaware said:

So the Savior taught divorce and remarriage is permissible as long as the divorce action of a faithful spouse is precipitated by the disloyalty of a cheating spouse.

I would agree.

Jim

[Kenngo1969]

I'm not sure how receptive your friend might be to something like this, but perhaps, if nothing else, he would be open enough to it to read out of curiosity about your  beliefs.  Here's what one of the Lord's Living Prophets had to say on the subject:  https://www.lds.org/general-conference/2007/04/divorce?lang=eng

[Gray]

10 hours ago, kryoung1983 said:

I have some very close friends that are German Baptist. Essentially Anabaptist group and a very devout family. The father is a far better man then me, but over and over again the topic of remarriage has come up. (even though I am 34 and haven't been married once!) The topic has come up in numerous conversations in which he has stated that remarriage is adultery and it has always been viewed this way including within early Christianity. He quotes such scriptures as Mark 10:11-12 "

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

 And if a woman shall put away her husband, and be married to another, she committeth adultery."

The topic on this has come up literally more times then I can count since it somehow comes  up every time I visit the family. I have known them a few years. I figured I should probably come to some understanding of how I can give an intelligent response to this. Does anyone have any ideas. Both in terms of the scriptures and in terms of early Christianity. 

 

 

Jesus' teachings that divorce and remarriage = adultery are very likely authentic to the historical Jesus. If that matters to you, then there's nothing to refute - Jesus really taught this doctrine, and it was taught by early Christians as well. If you don't like the doctrine, then you can always find some way to reinterpret it.

Matthew tries to soften this teaching a bit, which is one of the pieces of evidence that it's authentic.

Edited November 13, 2017 by Gray

[thesometimesaint]

That's been the excuse of abusers for a long time.

[Coop]

My understanding is that at this time the Jews were practicing some form of polygamy.  If this is true, and I believe it is, then what Jesus said about divorce makes perfect sense to me and this is why.

I believe that we evolved as a species to live and mate in polygamous groups.  For a good review of the evidence in support of this position I highly recommend two books.  The first is by PG Woodhouse and it entitled "The Secret of Tiny Cloud".  The second is by Christopher Ryan and it is entitled "Sex at Dawn".  Both are available on Amazon.

One of the things we learn from the research is that in most polygamous societies divorce is unheard of except in the noted case of the Church in Utah.  Instead of divorce as the solution for couples who couldn't get along, polygamous societies simply allowed you to take another wife/husband.  My take on what Jesus said about divorce is that He was concerned about those who wanted to shirk their financial and parental responsibilities.  Not that he wanted us to suffer in a bad relationship.  Polygamous marriages allows for one to balance one's personal needs with one's responsibilities in a way that monogamy doesn't.

Of course we don't have that option today so divorce does make sense when the couple are unable or unwilling to stay married.  Monogamy isn't the easiest marriage system to live.  It takes work to balance our polygamous natures with the restriction to one partner.  Evidence of this is all around us in prostitution, pornography, fornication, and adultery.

[CV75]

12 hours ago, kryoung1983 said:

I have some very close friends that are German Baptist. Essentially Anabaptist group and a very devout family. The father is a far better man then me, but over and over again the topic of remarriage has come up. (even though I am 34 and haven't been married once!) The topic has come up in numerous conversations in which he has stated that remarriage is adultery and it has always been viewed this way including within early Christianity. He quotes such scriptures as Mark 10:11-12 "

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

 And if a woman shall put away her husband, and be married to another, she committeth adultery."

The topic on this has come up literally more times then I can count since it somehow comes  up every time I visit the family. I have known them a few years. I figured I should probably come to some understanding of how I can give an intelligent response to this. Does anyone have any ideas. Both in terms of the scriptures and in terms of early Christianity.

Verse 9 allows that God joins, but can also put asunder (Matthew 16:19). So I think divorce and remarriage are permitted in the law of Christ when God approves. It is not virtuous for a man or a woman to assume they have this authority, and so usurping it from God or not acting in good faith would constitute adultery (verses 2, 11 and 12). The Lord's allowance for divorce and remarriage in Moses' and other imperfect faith systems gives marriage and ex-marriage partners space for repentance and forgiveness on these points. The ideal remains, which I think people striving for the light of Christ will seek to attain.

[JLHPROF]

Simple truth that we don't want to admit is that Jesus did teach this.
Mormonism gives a few extended valid reasons for divorce.  But the fact is, we as a Church body tend to turn a blind eye to this teaching.

Marriage is a covenant.  In Mormonism it is a specifically outlined temple covenant.
Only the breaking of those covenants merit divorce.  Christ specified adultery, but common sense tells us that situations like abuse would also be a legitimate reason.
But sadly as a general rule we ignore these teachings on divorce and remarriage.

[Buckeye]

1 hour ago, JLHPROF said:

Simple truth that we don't want to admit is that Jesus did teach this.
Mormonism gives a few extended valid reasons for divorce.  But the fact is, we as a Church body tend to turn a blind eye to this teaching.

Marriage is a covenant.  In Mormonism it is a specifically outlined temple covenant.
Only the breaking of those covenants merit divorce.  Christ specified adultery, but common sense tells us that situations like abuse would also be a legitimate reason.
But sadly as a general rule we ignore these teachings on divorce and remarriage.

I agree that the scriptural records gives no basis to ignore this teaching. But if full repentance is possible for adultery (and whatever other offenses justify divorce) then the teaching is foolish and should be dropped. Consider a couple that wants to divorce but has no legitimate grounds (for sake of argument, we'll say that adultery and abuse are the only two grounds). In that case, a couple desperate enough would just decide to commit adultery (or abuse each other), face whatever consequence ensues, get a legitimate divorce, and then work their way back to full fellowship. Considering that such gamesmanship would meet the letter of the law, why not allow divorce at will so that couples are not encouraged to commit a serious offense they really do not want to inflict? In the insurance/legal world, we call that a perverse incentive.

 

[strappinglad]

I once wrote to BRM about this exact verse. His response was similar to the kenngo's link above. We , as a people , were not willing or not able to live that law , and the consequences about adultery were suspended. Perhaps it is like the law of Consecration .

[JLHPROF]

16 minutes ago, Buckeye said:

I agree that the scriptural records gives no basis to ignore this teaching. But if full repentance is possible for adultery (and whatever other offenses justify divorce) then the teaching is foolish and should be dropped. Consider a couple that wants to divorce but has no legitimate grounds (for sake of argument, we'll say that adultery and abuse are the only two grounds). In that case, a couple desperate enough would just decide to commit adultery (or abuse each other), face whatever consequence ensues, get a legitimate divorce, and then work their way back to full fellowship. Considering that such gamesmanship would meet the letter of the law, why not allow divorce at will so that couples are not encouraged to commit a serious offense they really do not want to inflict? In the insurance/legal world, we call that a perverse incentive.

 

I don't think repentance is the issue here.
Here is the question that should be asked -

• "Are those members who are divorced and remarried committing a sin, assuming their divorce wasn't due to breaking of covenant through adultery or abuse etc?"

I think you'd be hard pressed to find many members today who would consider divorce a sin.  Depending on which stats you believe LDS divorce rates are only slightly better than the average.
And the idea that divorce/remarriage is better than adultery (ie, let them divorce so they aren't tempted to commit adultery) would seem to be a non-starter of an argument since the very scripture we are addressing here suggests that divorce and remarriage IS adultery so not any different.

And this doesn't even begin to address some of the doctrinal statements on divorce by people like Brigham Young and other Church leaders.
Divorce seems to be the one sin that we all consider acceptable regardless of what Jesus said.

[JLHPROF]

2 minutes ago, strappinglad said:

I once wrote to BRM about this exact verse. His response was similar to the kenngo's link above. We , as a people , were not willing or not able to live that law , and the consequences about adultery were suspended. Perhaps it is like the law of Consecration .

sus·pend

səˈspend/

verb

past tense: suspended; past participle: suspended

1. 1.

   temporarily prevent from continuing or being in force or effect.

    

    

   Does that mean the consequences of this are yet to come?  Suspended doesn't mean we won't ever have to suffer them, just that they are delayed.

[strappinglad]

19 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

Does that mean the consequences of this are yet to come?  Suspended doesn't mean we won't ever have to suffer them, just that they are delayed.

Oh, I am reasonably sure there will be a consequence for divorcing one's spouse because they didn't wash the dishes correctly. Both in this life and in the next.

[Gray]

4 hours ago, Coop said:

My understanding is that at this time the Jews were practicing some form of polygamy.  If this is true, and I believe it is, then what Jesus said about divorce makes perfect sense to me and this is why.

I believe that we evolved as a species to live and mate in polygamous groups.  For a good review of the evidence in support of this position I highly recommend two books.  The first is by PG Woodhouse and it entitled "The Secret of Tiny Cloud".  The second is by Christopher Ryan and it is entitled "Sex at Dawn".  Both are available on Amazon.

One of the things we learn from the research is that in most polygamous societies divorce is unheard of except in the noted case of the Church in Utah.  Instead of divorce as the solution for couples who couldn't get along, polygamous societies simply allowed you to take another wife/husband.  My take on what Jesus said about divorce is that He was concerned about those who wanted to shirk their financial and parental responsibilities.  Not that he wanted us to suffer in a bad relationship.  Polygamous marriages allows for one to balance one's personal needs with one's responsibilities in a way that monogamy doesn't.

Of course we don't have that option today so divorce does make sense when the couple are unable or unwilling to stay married.  Monogamy isn't the easiest marriage system to live.  It takes work to balance our polygamous natures with the restriction to one partner.  Evidence of this is all around us in prostitution, pornography, fornication, and adultery.

I think Jesus' teachings on divorce/adultery imply that polygamy is also prohibited.

[JLHPROF]

1 hour ago, Gray said:

I think Jesus' teachings on divorce/adultery imply that polygamy is also prohibited.

I don't.  There is no connection between his statement and polygamy.

[janderich]

I also agree that Jesus taught a much stricter law of marriage. But I believe Mathew provides a more complete picture. Here is Jesus' teaching: 

Quote

Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.They say unto him, Why did Moses then command to give a writing of divorcement, and to put her away? 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. And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery. His disciples say unto him, If the case of the man be so with his wife, it is not good to marry. But he said unto them, All men cannot receive this saying, save they to whom it is given. (Matt 19:6-11)

We as a society, and to some extent a church, are living the lesser law in this matter. And the truth is that's the best we can do. Many cannot live this higher law and the Lord in his mercy has not required it of them. But there are some who can receive the law and do live it. As Jesus says, "He that is able to receive it, let him receive it." 

[JLHPROF]

18 minutes ago, janderich said:

I also agree that Jesus taught a much stricter law of marriage. But I believe Mathew provides a more complete picture. Here is Jesus' teaching: 

We as a society, and to some extent a church, are living the lesser law in this matter. And the truth is that's the best we can do. Many cannot live this higher law and the Lord in his mercy has not required it of them. But there are some who can receive the law and do live it. As Jesus says, "He that is able to receive it, let him receive it." 

The problem with this idea is that we can live a lesser law of divorce but a higher law of marriage when they are part of the same covenant.
It just doesn't work.  They aren't two separate laws.

Brigham Young was clear that the eternal marriage sealing is not so easily undone as a civil marriage would be.
We can issue all the divorces we like, but even though agency is supreme and nobody has to stay with someone they don't love, God may not recognize those civil divorces as valid ends to eternal covenants.  At least according to Brigham and his contemporaries.

• "It is not right for the brethren to divorce their wives as they do. I am determined that if men don’t stop divorcing their wives, I shall stop sealing."
• President Young said that when a man married a wife, he took her for better or worse and had no right to ill use her; a man that would mistreat a woman in order to get her to leave him would find himself alone in the worlds to come. He said he knew of no law to give a man in polygamy a divorce. He had told the brethren that if they would break the law, they should pay for it; but he did not want them to come to him for a divorce as it was not right
• "[June] 28 Sunday... Presdent Young spoke 47 Minuts. In speaking of giving divorces He said when he sealed a woman to a man he asked nothing for it but if they asked for a divorce I charge him $10 for his folly for it is no better than a peace of white Paper. For when I seal a woman to a man it takes a higher power than I am to take her away."
• "When they undertake to break the commandments & tear to pieces the doings of the Lord, I make them give me something... for their foolishness. Do you think you have obtained a bill of divorce? No, nor ever can if you are faithful (or your spouse is faithful) to the covenants you have made. It takes a higher power than a bill of divorce to take a woman from a man (or man from a woman) who is good...else the spouse is bound to their spouse & will be forever & ever. You might as well ask me for a piece of blank paper for a divorce, as to have a little writing on it... It is all nonsense & folly; There is no such thing in the ordinances of the house of God; you cannot find any such law."
• "There is no ecclesiastical law that you know anything about to free a wife from a man to whom she has been sealed if he honors his Priesthood."

[strappinglad]

Did Brigham give any of his wives a divorce?

[mrmarklin]

1 hour ago, strappinglad said:

Did Brigham give any of his wives a divorce?

At least civilly, he did. 

[The Nehor]

8 hours ago, Coop said:

My understanding is that at this time the Jews were practicing some form of polygamy.  If this is true, and I believe it is, then what Jesus said about divorce makes perfect sense to me and this is why.

I believe that we evolved as a species to live and mate in polygamous groups.  For a good review of the evidence in support of this position I highly recommend two books.  The first is by PG Woodhouse and it entitled "The Secret of Tiny Cloud".  The second is by Christopher Ryan and it is entitled "Sex at Dawn".  Both are available on Amazon.

One of the things we learn from the research is that in most polygamous societies divorce is unheard of except in the noted case of the Church in Utah.  Instead of divorce as the solution for couples who couldn't get along, polygamous societies simply allowed you to take another wife/husband.  My take on what Jesus said about divorce is that He was concerned about those who wanted to shirk their financial and parental responsibilities.  Not that he wanted us to suffer in a bad relationship.  Polygamous marriages allows for one to balance one's personal needs with one's responsibilities in a way that monogamy doesn't.

Of course we don't have that option today so divorce does make sense when the couple are unable or unwilling to stay married.  Monogamy isn't the easiest marriage system to live.  It takes work to balance our polygamous natures with the restriction to one partner.  Evidence of this is all around us in prostitution, pornography, fornication, and adultery.

This might work for men who could take another wife but an unhappy woman could not take another husband at the time. I do not think this explanation works. 

Plus it implies a cut and run approach to marriage. If it is not working try another one.

[The Nehor]

1 hour ago, strappinglad said:

Did Brigham give any of his wives a divorce?

Yes. He was also liberal with allowing women to divorce in general.

[janderich]

2 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

The problem with this idea is that we can live a lesser law of divorce but a higher law of marriage when they are part of the same covenant.
It just doesn't work.  They aren't two separate laws.

Brigham Young was clear that the eternal marriage sealing is not so easily undone as a civil marriage would be.
We can issue all the divorces we like, but even though agency is supreme and nobody has to stay with someone they don't love, God may not recognize those civil divorces as valid ends to eternal covenants.  At least according to Brigham and his contemporaries.

So are you saying that God will force two people so are sealed together to stay with each other in eternity even though they may despise one another? I believe a sealing requires at least two parts, one is the priesthood, but the other is love one for another. Without both a sealing will never last. 

I'm not  clear on you point about there not being a lesser law of marriage. Do you believe it is better to have marriage with the possibility of divorce? Or should all people be forced to live the strict law Jesus put forward?

Brigham Young divorced a number of wives so I guess he didn't live the law. 

[california boy]

I know this comment will be completely ignored, but why does the church allow remarriage.  Why doesn't the church allow a couple to completely separate  and then require them to be celibate for the rest of their lives.  That way no actual divorce would be needed.  Or if a divorce was allowed because of financial entanglements, the person would still not ever commit adultery because they would never be allowed to remarry.  

Love to know exactly why you wouldn't support celibacy for the rest of your life if you got a divorce.

Edited November 14, 2017 by california boy

[Jane_Doe]

4 minutes ago, california boy said:

I know this comment will be completely ignored, but why does the church allow remarriage.  Why doesn't the church allow a couple to completely separate  and then require them to be celibate for the rest of their lives.  That way no actual divorce would be needed.  Or if a divorce was allowed because of financial entanglements, the person would still not ever commit adultery because they would never be allowed to remarry.  

Love to know exactly why you wouldn't support celibacy for the rest of your life if you got a divorce.

Would you like to tell that to an abused person?