Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
cinepro

Interpreter Podcast: Dehlin is an "idiot" for leaking the 11/5 policy. Also, "we don't hide policies."

Recommended Posts

16 minutes ago, alter idem said:

It was mostly plural wives, because likely they were the ones most unhappy in marriage--not surprising. 

Oh, I don't know if that's true.  I think there were a great number of the first, legal wives who were unhappy....but they did not divorce their husbands (most of them).

18 minutes ago, alter idem said:

Brigham Young was more lenient with women who wanted to divorce,  and less so with men.  They had to have real cause.

I think this is a more compassionate way to deal with us--rather than refuse to allow divorce which commits some to live a miserable existence.

I think there needs to compassion and understanding for both parties involved when there is a divorce (the men and the women).  Each situation is different from what my experience has been.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, alter idem said:

God's standard was that marriage should be for eternity.  But over time, the people were not able to live to this standard.  Because of this, Moses suffered or allowed the imperfect children of Israel to divorce, and for the same reason, the church today allows for divorce.  Because we are not to a level of righteousness that we as a people can be held to that standard.  It's not a matter of ignoring Jesus, and the truth is, many people remain in unhappy marriages because they want to live this standard.  But, many can't do that and it is a matter of the Savior recognizing that we as a collective church cannot live up to this standard at this time. 

 

I know that's what is taught now, but are you suggesting that eternal marriage was the original teaching about marriage? If so, is there any evidence of that. I'm curious about scriptural evidence but also any anthropological evidence dating way back. Any writings, pictograms, hieroglyphics...anything that would support the idea that eternal marriage was an early teaching?

1 hour ago, alter idem said:

The scriptures do not mention gay marriage, as it was never known until this time in history, but we do have revelation concerning marriage.  The Proclamation to the World on the Family is revelation and it states that 'marriage between a man and a woman is ordained of God' It was declared in the Women's general meeting in 1995.  It reiterates and supports doctrine found in the Old Testament and the Pearl of Great Price(both books of scripture which we believe are revelation from God), which tell us that God placed Adam and Eve in the Garden and gave them two commandments--one of those was to multiply and replenish the earth, which means to bear children.  The union was to meant to produce a posterity and so that the man and the woman could become 'one flesh' before God.  It states 'therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother and shall cleave unto his wife; and they shall be one flesh'.

 

I think there is a difference between "proclamation" and a "revelation". I wonder why, IF it was revelation, the prophet would have phrased it as a "proclamation". Revelation would seem to carry much more wait than a proclamation. In recent years, the proclamation has been referred to as "revelatory" but I don't recall that it has been dubbed "revelation". IF it is revelation, why isn't it included in scripture?

Is it good for man to be alone? No.

Using your logic, one could argue that there is also scriptural basis supporting gay marriage as preferential to remaining single as a gay person.

The truth is, there is VERY little in scripture about Hom0sxuality while there is a lot about other subjects like fornication, adultery, divorce. Would anyone argue that this is a very large issue in our day and age? Wasn't the BoM written for our day? Yet there is nothing addressing the issue. Curious.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
28 minutes ago, ALarson said:

Yes, it was mostly plural wives who divorced past Prophets.

However, Joseph F. Smith and his first wife divorced (Levira):

On April 5, 1859, Smith married his sixteen-year-old cousin, Levira Annette Clark Smith, daughter of Samuel H. Smith. When Joseph F. Smith left on his mission to England the next year, his companion for the journey was Levira's brother, Samuel. Smith and Levira had no children. Seven years later (1866), Brigham Young directed Smith to take a plural wife. Levira gave her permission and was present at the marriage of Smith and Julina Lambson (who became the mother of future president Joseph Fielding Smith) -- a longtime friend of hers. Levira became disenchanted with the plural marriage arrangement and divorced Smith in 1868 and moved to California.

This isn't exactly accurate--about her being 'disenchanted with plural marriage' as the reason for her leaving.    Levira accepted plural marriage, like most of the devout young members of that time. Instead, the truth was, she and Joseph had serious marital issues.  The long time apart during his missions, her emotional issues (she seems to have had depression or bi-polar disorder) and her inability to have children put a strain on the marriage.  Joseph brought an orphaned boy back from England for them to raise but Levira, due to her emotional issues, wasn't able or interested in caring for him--and this also caused strain.  Their arguments worsened.  Joseph had a temper and was young and impetuous, he did not understand her emotional struggles--he also drank in his youth and they would have serious rows.  Brigham Young's efforts to help (he felt he needed to be a father to Joseph since his own had died and his mother was dead also)  were ineffective.  Even with all this, Joseph and Levira were very much in love--in fact, when Julina agreed to marry Joseph F. her mother warned her that Joseph was deeply in love with Levira, and that he'd never love her the way he loved Levira. Julina accepted that because she loved Joseph and wanted to marry him anyway. The two wives were close--got along like sisters, but the marriage fell apart after the birth of Julina's first child and this is what they attributed her leaving to.  This was devastating to Joseph, but also hard for Julina. 

There's something else I can share.  Decades later, Levira wrote to Joseph and asked if she could return to their family.  Julina told him that she should welcome her back, but Joseph said no.  'She chose to leave us and she can't come back now and it wouldn't be fair to the rest of you'.  He was referring to their belief in the prominent role of the first wife-- if they took her back, she would displace Julina as 'first wife' and he would not do that to her.  But, I think it was the pain of her rejection, which was still after so long, an open wound on his soul---which he had not been able to get over.  Joseph died in 1918 and later, after his death, Julina had Levira's sealing to him reinstated.  I think she felt that the fracture Levira's leaving had caused in their family might be healed on the other side of the veil--at least she'd done the work here so that it could be possible.  I think that is the most incredible christ like thing a woman could do and it showed her devoted, selfless love for them both.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
5 minutes ago, alter idem said:

This isn't exactly accurate--about her being 'disenchanted with plural marriage' as the reason for her leaving.    Levira accepted plural marriage, like most of the devout young members of that time. Instead, the truth was, she and Joseph had serious marital issues.  The long time apart during his missions, her emotional issues (she seems to have had depression or bi-polar disorder) and her inability to have children put a strain on the marriage.  Joseph brought an orphaned boy back from England for them to raise but Levira, due to her emotional issues, wasn't able or interested in caring for him--and this also caused strain.  Their arguments worsened.  Joseph had a temper and was young and impetuous, he did not understand her emotional struggles--he also drank in his youth and they would have serious rows.  Brigham Young's efforts to help (he felt he needed to be a father to Joseph since his own had died and his mother was dead also)  were ineffective.  Even with all this, Joseph and Levira were very much in love--in fact, when Julina agreed to marry Joseph F. her mother warned her that Joseph was deeply in love with Levira, and that he'd never love her the way he loved Levira. Julina accepted that because she loved Joseph and wanted to marry him anyway. The two wives were close--got along like sisters, but the marriage fell apart after the birth of Julina's first child and this is what they attributed her leaving to.  This was devastating to Joseph, but also hard for Julina. 

There's something else I can share.  Decades later, Levira wrote to Joseph and asked if she could return to their family.  Julina told him that she should welcome her back, but Joseph said no.  'She chose to leave us and she can't come back now and it wouldn't be fair to the rest of you'.  He was referring to their belief in the prominent role of the first wife-- if they took her back, she would displace Julina as 'first wife' and he would not do that to her.  But, I think it was the pain of her rejection, which was still after so long, an open wound on his soul---which he had not been able to get over.  Joseph died in 1918 and later, after his death, Julina had Levira's sealing to him reinstated.  I think she felt that the fracture Levira's leaving had caused in their family might be healed on the other side of the veil--at least she'd done the work here so that it could be possible.  I think that is the most incredible christ like thing a woman could do and it showed her devoted, selfless love for them both.

Yes...I've read the history there.  I just posted the brief version :) 

But I agree that there was more involved....there usually is when it comes to divorce.

Share this post


Link to post
17 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

I know that's what is taught now, but are you suggesting that eternal marriage was the original teaching about marriage? If so, is there any evidence of that. I'm curious about scriptural evidence but also any anthropological evidence dating way back. Any writings, pictograms, hieroglyphics...anything that would support the idea that eternal marriage was an early teaching?

I think there is a difference between "proclamation" and a "revelation". I wonder why, IF it was revelation, the prophet would have phrased it as a "proclamation". Revelation would seem to carry much more wait than a proclamation. In recent years, the proclamation has been referred to as "revelatory" but I don't recall that it has been dubbed "revelation". IF it is revelation, why isn't it included in scripture?

Is it good for man to be alone? No.

Using your logic, one could argue that there is also scriptural basis supporting gay marriage as preferential to remaining single as a gay person.

The truth is, there is VERY little in scripture about Hom0sxuality while there is a lot about other subjects like fornication, adultery, divorce. Would anyone argue that this is a very large issue in our day and age? Wasn't the BoM written for our day? Yet there is nothing addressing the issue. Curious.

Yes, I'm suggesting that eternal marriage was the 'original teaching' and I'm certain I could find prophets stating this.  It's what we believe in this religion.  I don't have time to look it up now, but when I do, I'll find a quote. You could look too, you know.

If you think the phrase, it's not good for man to be alone, means he should be with a man, I doubt that.  The Bible was very strong in forbidding homosexual relations. There was enough scripture--for Jews, Christians and Muslims on it that it's been a serious cultural taboo for several millenia--except among certain pagans and isolated groups.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
3 minutes ago, alter idem said:

Yes, I'm suggesting that eternal marriage was the 'original teaching' and I'm certain I could find prophets stating this.  It's what we believe in this religion.  I don't have time to look it up now, but when I do, I'll find a quote. You could look too, you know.

If you think the phrase, it's not good for man to be alone, means he should be with a man, I doubt that.  The Bible was very strong in forbidding homosexual relations. There was enough scripture--for Jews, Christians and Muslims on it that it's been a serious cultural taboo for several millenia--except among certain pagans and isolated groups.

I'm not asking about what modern prophets say happened in the past. I'm asking if there is any evidence from the time that this teaching existed. I'd be really curious to see anthropological/cultural evidence of the teaching. I'm not aware of any, but I would imagine it would exist, right? We know tons about past civilizations and it would be interesting to see if the teaching of eternal marriage existed in antiquity. Because IF that was God's teaching from the beginning, and it was such a big deal, it would seem there would be some kind of record. Oral histories that eventually were written down...that kind of thing.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
7 minutes ago, ALarson said:

Yes...I've read the history there.  I just posted the brief version :) 

But I agree that there was more involved....there usually is when it comes to divorce.

You knew that about Levira wanted to come back and Julina getting the sealing reinstated?  I'm surprised, I thought I was sharing something that was not well known.  I guess I forget how much people already know on this forum.😊

Share this post


Link to post
Just now, HappyJackWagon said:

I'm not asking about what modern prophets say happened in the past. I'm asking if there is any evidence from the time that this teaching existed. I'd be really curious to see anthropological/cultural evidence of the teaching. I'm not aware of any, but I would imagine it would exist, right? We know tons about past civilizations and it would be interesting to see if the teaching of eternal marriage existed in antiquity. Because IF that was God's teaching from the beginning, and it was such a big deal, it would seem there would be some kind of record. Oral histories that eventually were written down...that kind of thing.

Well, I'm not sure we have any kind of evidence to back up the biblical record at all--except for that supposed altar which was identified at Adamondiahman or around there, and that's pretty sketchy at best.  I think this is one of those things you just have to take on faith--like a lot of other things that pertain to God.

Orson Pratt claimed that Adam and Eve were married by God and it fits since we believe that these ordinances must be done in this world.  If you are asking if other cultures in ancient times believed their marriages were eternal, I don't know.  Maybe some did, it would be interesting to research.

 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
6 minutes ago, alter idem said:

You knew that about Levira wanted to come back and Julina getting the sealing reinstated?  I'm surprised, I thought I was sharing something that was not well known.  I guess I forget how much people already know on this forum.😊

I didn't know about her wanting to return and Julina's loving response,  I appreciate you posting that.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
47 minutes ago, alter idem said:

You knew that about Levira wanted to come back and Julina getting the sealing reinstated?  I'm surprised, I thought I was sharing something that was not well known.  I guess I forget how much people already know on this forum.😊

I think most members aren't even aware that one of the Prophets went through a legal divorce (let alone the entire story here).  I knew because I'd researched Joseph F. Smith pretty extensively at one time.  I agree that their story is a fascinating one....thanks for going to the effort to post a more thorough telling than I did 👍

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, alter idem said:

The scriptures do not mention gay marriage, as it was never known until this time in history, but we do have revelation concerning marriage.  The Proclamation to the World on the Family is revelation and it states that 'marriage between a man and a woman is ordained of God' It was declared in the Women's general meeting in 1995.  It reiterates and supports doctrine found in the Old Testament and the Pearl of Great Price(both books of scripture which we believe are revelation from God), which tell us that God placed Adam and Eve in the Garden and gave them two commandments--one of those was to multiply and replenish the earth, which means to bear children.  The union was to meant to produce a posterity and so that the man and the woman could become 'one flesh' before God.  It states 'therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother and shall cleave unto his wife; and they shall be one flesh'.

 

Actually while President Hinckley did read the Proclamation on the Family at the Woman's general meeting in 1995, he never in his lifetime claimed it was received by revelation.

I also might add, I too believe that marriage between a man and a woman is ordained by God.  That is not what the issue is. The issue is about whether there has ever been a revelation from God concerning gay marriage,  There is nothing in the Pearl of Great Price concerning gay marriage.  Actually there is nothing about gay in The Book of Mormon or D&C either.  

Yes I am fully aware that gay marriage did not exist when any of those scriptures were written.  So no one can point to any scripture to know how God feels about a gay couple being in a marriage.  It is why modern day revelation is so important.  So far, the heavens have not revealed God's will.  So far, the position of the Church on gay marriage is just the opinion of Church leaders.  That may be fine, but there is no claim that they got that opinion from revelation from God.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
4 hours ago, alter idem said:

God's standard was that marriage should be for eternity.  But over time, the people were not able to live to this standard.  Because of this, Moses suffered or allowed the imperfect children of Israel to divorce, and for the same reason, the church today allows for divorce.  Because we are not to a level of righteousness that we as a people can be held to that standard.  It's not a matter of ignoring Jesus, and the truth is, many people remain in unhappy marriages because they want to live this standard.  But, many can't do that and it is a matter of the Savior recognizing that we as a collective church cannot live up to this standard at this time. 

 

You do realiize that Christ came after Moses. And Christ taught a higher law.  If Christ never expected us to live that higher law, they why did He present it.  It must have been clear to God that after 2000 years of living the law of Moses what He should expect from us even if it requires sacrifice.

Thee law that Christ taught doesn't prohibit divorce.  What it prohibits is a woman remarrying after a divorce.  The sin of adultery only occurs if a woman remarries.  What.  Do you think that requiriing someone to be celibate for the rest of their lives is just too hard and God would never require or expect that of anyone because they are too weak?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
3 hours ago, Calm said:

But it occurred after he had other wives, so the plurality of wives may have been a fundamental issue for her where it wouldn't be for most divorces as we think of them.

Does anyone feel comfortable with the idea of forcing a woman or man to stay in a marriage they do not want to be in?  I can see it as acceptable only if it is understood as such from the beginning, penalties (including cultural) for adultery are identical for both (too often women were forced to stay in loveless marriages without companionship while their husbands had mistresses without difficulty), and there was the option of separate households of some sort if reconciliation was impossible though much better if they could live as friends at least (though in cases where there is mental illness that might be impossible).

A couple could continue to be married, but live completely separate lives as you suggested.  The sin of adultery occurs when the woman remarries.  Do you think it is unfair to ask a person to live a celibate life if their marriage does not work out?  

Having a mistress is not without difficulity?  Isn't celibacy the only option for men who no longer want to be with their wife?

Share this post


Link to post
On 5/16/2019 at 7:26 PM, california boy said:

You do realiize that Christ came after Moses. And Christ taught a higher law.  If Christ never expected us to live that higher law, they why did He present it.  It must have been clear to God that after 2000 years of living the law of Moses what He should expect from us even if it requires sacrifice.

Thee law that Christ taught doesn't prohibit divorce.  What it prohibits is a woman remarrying after a divorce.  The sin of adultery only occurs if a woman remarries.  What.  Do you think that requiriing someone to be celibate for the rest of their lives is just too hard and God would never require or expect that of anyone because they are too weak?

SF author, Philip K. D_ick in the introduction to his collection, The Golden Man, quotes German Poet Heine, on the predicament of Atlas, the titan condemned to carry the weight of the world on his shoulders.  "I carry that which cannot be carried, and in my body my heart would like to break."

And then there is a story I heard back in Junior, I think about Aesop, who while serving as a favored slave, was given a choice of which burden to carry on a long journey to market.  He chose the heaviest.  His master questioned the wisdom of the choice, but Aesop insisted.  And as they went on their journey, at each stop, food was distributed from the burden he had chosed, and day by day, it became lighter.  At the end of the journey, the Master, again impressed, freed the slave.

One of the diagnostic characteristics of sex addiction is the person's conviction that "sex is my most important need," a natural consequence of the brain having been tricked into feeling as though sex is equivalent to survival (for technical details, get the DVD "Pleasure Unwoven: The Science of Addition" or books by Carnes or Magness), which of course means that the notion of doing without seems an intolerable burden.  Sex addiction is based on an increased craving for the dopamine and endorphins which a person's favored means of acting out produces, which means, the means of acting out is not an end in itself, but a means to those ends, a path to a chemical rush.  Sex addiction combines increased craving and impeded judgement that make for impulsivity.  To lubricate one's actions toward acting out, addicts characteristically use resentments and grievances as a means of self justification, and celebrating the wrongs perpetrated against them also acts as a means of avoiding introspection.  

12 Step recovery address both the craving and the impeded judgement, and involves setting boundaries and accepting accountability, and making a "searching and fearless inventory" an important goal of which is "dismantling the grievance story."  George Bailey's life is a living hell when he is focused on his personal grievances and resentments, and those grievances and resentments are what cause his hurtful outbursts directed against not only Potter, who may deserve it, but his family, friends, and children, who do not.  Clarence helps him through his fourth step, and he learns to focus on the significance of his personal relationships, which changes how he views his personal frustrations as not as overwhelmingly burdensome.  "I'm going to jail,  isn't it wonderful?"   12 Step recovery involves living a day at a time, focusing on carrying today's burdens, with a long term goal of lightening burdens of an expanded set of personal relationships, rather than on focusing on the intolerable weight of forever and resentment relative to one's self.

Periods of celibacy happens to be an important part of 12 step recovery, taking time away from acting out behaviors so the body can heal and recover from the increased craving, relearning that not only that sex is not essential for survival, but that one can do without.  Boundaries in behavior, not feeding into it, redirecting thoughts, re-establishing true intimacies, learning to fill in other, more productive and real ways, the emotional needs that acting out had been substituting for,... this is a process that takes time, according to Carnes's observations, a year and a half to two and a half years, with consistent effort.  Much longer, without consistancy.  

The end result of recovery is that doing without is not too hard, not an intolerable burden, not a heart breaking and soul crushing weight that is the sole focus of every thought and nerve.   And in real life, circumstances of health issues, emotional issues, work issues, family issues, recovery issues, periods of celibacy can be important in marriage (I've had years go by without on several occasions), just as in youth, missions, and single life.  The weight of the burden of celibacy is not an existential constant, the same to all experiencers, but closely tied to whether a person is an addict to one degree or another, to whether a person focuses on personal grievances and resentments which can include the notion of "going without forever", or whether a person takes a searching and fearless personal inventory, working on themselves, and improving their relationship with a God who will ultimatly see them to a joyful life.   From this perspective, orientation is not the defining issue.

FWIW

Kevin Christensen

Canonsburg, PA

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
32 minutes ago, Kevin Christensen said:

SF author, Philip K. D_ick in the introduction to his collection, The Golden Man, quotes German Poet Heine, on the predicament of Atlas, the titan condemned to carry the weight of the world on his shoulders.  "I carry that which cannot be carried, and in my body my heart would like to break."

And then there is a story I heard back in Junior, I think about Aesop, who while serving as a favored slave, was given a choice of which burden to carry on a long journey to market.  He chose the heaviest.  His master questioned the wisdom of the choice, but Aesop insisted.  And as they went on their journey, at each stop, food was distributed from the burden he had chosed, and day by day, it became lighter.  At the end of the journey, the Master, again impressed, freed the slave.

One of the diagnostic characteristics of sex addiction is the person's conviction that "sex is my most important need," a natural consequence of the brain having been tricked into feeling as though sex is equivalent to survival (for technical details, get the DVD "Pleasure Unwoven: The Science of Addition" or books by Carnes or Magness), which of course means that the notion of doing without seems an intolerable burden.  Sex addiction is based on an increased craving for the dopamine and endorphins which a person's favored means of acting out produces, which means, the means of acting out is not an end in itself, but a means to those ends, a path to a chemical rush.  Sex addiction combines increased craving and impeded judgement that make for impulsivity.  To lubricate one's actions toward acting out, addicts characteristically use resentments and grievances as a means of self justification, and celebrating the wrongs perpetrated against them also acts as a means of avoiding introspection.  

12 Step recovery address both the craving and the impeded judgement, and involves setting boundaries and accepting accountability, and making a "searching and fearless inventory" an important goal of which is "dismantling the grievance story."  George Bailey's life is a living hell when he is focused on his personal grievances and resentments, and those grievances and resentments are what cause his hurtful outbursts directed against not only Potter, who may deserve it, but his family, friends, and children, who do not.  Clarence helps him through his fourth step, and he learns to focus on the significance of his personal relationships, which changes how he views his personal frustrations as not as overwhelmingly burdensome.  "I'm going to jail,  isn't it wonderful?"   12 Step recovery involves living a day at a time, focusing on carrying today's burdens, with a long term goal of lightening burdens of an expanded set of personal relationships, rather than on focusing on the intolerable weight of forever and resentment relative to one's self.

Periods of celibacy happens to be an important part of 12 step recovery, taking time away from acting out behaviors so the body can heal and recover from the increased craving, relearning that not only that sex is not essential for survival, but that one can do without.  Boundaries in behavior, not feeding into it, redirecting thoughts, re-establishing true intimacies, learning to fill in other, more productive and real ways, the emotional needs that acting out had been substituting for,... this is a process that takes time, according to Carnes's observations, a year and a half to two and a half years, with consistent effort.  Much longer, without consistancy.  

The end result of recovery is that doing without is not too hard, not an intolerable burden, not a heart breaking and soul crushing weight that is the sole focus of every thought and nerve.   And in real life, circumstances of health issues, emotional issues, work issues, family issues, recovery issues, periods of celibacy can be important in marriage (I've had years go by without on several occasions), just as in youth, missions, and single life.  The weight of the burden of celibacy is not an existential constant, the same to all experiencers, but closely tied to whether a person is an addict to one degree or another, to whether a person focuses on personal grievances and resentments which can include the notion of "going without forever", or whether a person takes a searching and fearless personal inventory, working on themselves, and improving their relationship with a God who will ultimatly see them to a joyful life.   From this perspective, orientation is not the defining issue.

FWIW

Kevin Christensen

Canonsburg, PA

Not sure why you posted this in reply to what I wrote.  Are you agrreeing that if someone divorces they should be. ceilbate the rest of their lives?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
On 5/16/2019 at 5:39 PM, california boy said:

  The sin of adultery occurs when the woman remarries....

Having a mistress is not without difficulity?  Isn't celibacy the only option for men who no longer want to be with their wife?

Also when the man remarries (Mark 10:11):

"He answered, "Anyone who divorces his wife and marries another woman commits adultery against her."

I do not think it is unfair to require a person (male or female) to be celibate if unmarried.

My second paragraph was referring to society in general, men having mistresses if they could afford them often carried no stigma in their culture even if taught as immoral by the churches.

Share this post


Link to post
2 hours ago, california boy said:

Not sure why you posted this in reply to what I wrote.  Are you agrreeing that if someone divorces they should be. ceilbate the rest of their lives?

For comprehension it helps to notice key words.  You mentioned "that requiriing someone to be celibate for the rest of their lives is just too hard and God would never require or expect that of anyone because they are too weak" and I addressed that issue, specifically, under what conditions celibacy might be experienced as an intolerable burden, and the circumstances under which the same burden can be experienced as much lighter. 

I did not mention or address adultery as such, nor definitions in various places, though for the record, I consider the Temple to be definitive on that topic.   I know many divorced and single and divorced and remarried people.  Circumstances and blame vary from case to case, and I do not assign the same Scarlet Letter to all. 

FWIW,

Kevin Christensen

Canonsburg, PA

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
On 5/16/2019 at 4:39 PM, california boy said:

A couple could continue to be married, but live completely separate lives as you suggested.  The sin of adultery occurs when the woman remarries.  Do you think it is unfair to ask a person to live a celibate life if their marriage does not work out?  

 Having a mistress is not without difficulity?  Isn't celibacy the only option for men who no longer want to be with their wife?

It is also the only option for those who never marry or for those who for whatever reason must be celibate in marriage.

Edited by Bernard Gui

Share this post


Link to post
14 hours ago, Calm said:

Also when the man remarries (Mark 10:11):

"He answered, "Anyone who divorces his wife and marries another woman commits adultery against her."

I do not think it is unfair to require a person (male or female) to be celibate if unmarried.

My second paragraph was referring to society in general, men having mistresses if they could afford them often carried no stigma in their culture even if taught as immoral by the churches.

 

11 hours ago, Kevin Christensen said:

For comprehension it helps to notice key words.  You mentioned "that requiriing someone to be celibate for the rest of their lives is just too hard and God would never require or expect that of anyone because they are too weak" and I addressed that issue, specifically, under what conditions celibacy might be experienced as an intolerable burden, and the circumstances under which the same burden can be experienced as much lighter. 

I did not mention or address adultery as such, nor definitions in various places, though for the record, I consider the Temple to be definitive on that topic.   I know many divorced and single and divorced and remarried people.  Circumstances and blame vary from case to case, and I do not assign the same Scarlet Letter to all. 

FWIW,

Kevin Christensen

Canonsburg, PA

 

 

7 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

It is also the only option for those who never marry or for those who for whatever reason must be celibate in marriage.

Maybe I am not being clear.  Christ said that anyone who remarries after divorce is committing adultery.  My question is, WHY does the church allow a person to remarry after a divorce instead of requiring celibacy as Christ clearly instructed.

Share this post


Link to post

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...