Oaks talk doesn’t explain the scripture on remarriage

[Wade Englund]

5 minutes ago, Calm said:

I believe Juliann means that nonmember women came to Utah in order to use the easier divorce requirements.

Yes. However, if I understood the linked article correctly, the "easier divorce requirements "were in regards to polygamous marriages,  which weren't' legal, and thus were handled by Church courts. If so, then Juliann's potshot fired blanks. 

Thanks, -Wade Enlgund-

[Calm]

7 minutes ago, Wade Englund said:

Yes. However, if I understood the linked article correctly, the "easier divorce requirements "were in regards to polygamous marriages,  which weren't' legal, and thus were handled by Church courts. If so, then Juliann's potshot fired blanks. 

Thanks, -Wade Enlgund-

A first/legal wife wanting to divorce from a plural husband would not be different from monogamous wives divorcing, would she?

[MiserereNobis]

3 hours ago, The Nehor said:

No one is getting their just desserts

As Hamlet says to Polonius: "Use every man after his desert, and who should ’scape whipping?"

As a member of The Elite Shakespeare Brethren, I'd like to point out that the phrase is "just deserts" (pronounced like desserts) coming from deserve. But hey, if it is raspberry cheesecake or bread pudding or tiramisu, I'll certainly take my just desserts

 

[california boy]

3 hours ago, CV75 said:

See this directly above: Posted just now

I believe I adressed this above: Posted just now

If unmarried people are committing sexual sin with each other, and they break up and find other partners, they can repent of any of the offenses. Additionally, they can go on to marry or live celebrate lives.

 

My post wasn't about unmarried people.  None of my post have been about unmarried people.  All of my post have been about divorced people who are committing adultery by having a second marriage.  

One more time.

 

Quote

 

Matthew 5:32 King James Version (KJV)

³² But I say unto you, That whosoever shall put away his wife, saving for the cause of fornication, causeth her to commit adultery: and whosoever shall marry her that is divorced committeth adultery.

 

 

 

[Joshua Valentine]

20 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

What about "having to get married"?

Should you be stuck forever for being young and stupid?

 

Yes, what does the LDS Church teach about all of Jesus´ eunuch talk? vs. have to get married?

To your last question: but this young and thus (while not absolutely, certainly more probably) stupid is the M.O. for the LDS Church dating/marriage scene. That is, the LDS Church and culture encourage marrying young and with hopefully helpful prayer (to help overcome the young and stupid factor).

I´ll have to try to look up some sources, but I seem to remember hearing teachings that seemed to indicate that it wasn´t so important who you married as long as they were a devout LDS (maybe/probably that you were led to marry by God?), that in this scenario love would grow. If this is a teaching of the LDS leadership, then should they not uphold Jesus´ commandment not to divorce except for fornication? IF (and I will try to find confirmation of this vague memory of mine) being a devout follower of the LDS God is sufficient to be married to, then it should be sufficient to stay in a marriage. And if the LDS God´s glory includes the happiness of humans, then it would seem that being a devout LDS member (who does not fornicate) should be enough to sustain a generally happy marriage, even. 

[JLHPROF]

1 hour ago, bluebell said:

If two people don't want to be together and want to be with others (and are sealed to those others) do you believe that God will force them to be together anyway?

Yes and no.

I don't believe God will force two people to stay in a covenant.  We always have agency to break our covenants.

But the idea we can get out of an eternal covenant which neither party has violated just so we can pick a new one, that I sincerely doubt,  just as Brigham did.

[Wade Englund]

44 minutes ago, Calm said:

A first/legal wife wanting to divorce from a plural husband would not be different from monogamous wives divorcing, would she?

No. But, technically,, the "easy divorce requirements" only apply to the non-legal plural marriages. The first/legal wife of a plural marriage would be subject to the legal requirements, rather than the ecclesiastic requirements.  Non-LDS women wouldn't be scampering in from all over the nation to take advantage of the ecclesiastical requirement, since it wouldn't apply. Sorry!

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[CV75]

2 minutes ago, california boy said:

My post wasn't about unmarried people.  None of my post have been about unmarried people.  All of my post have been about divorced people who are committing adultery by having a second marriage.  

One more time.

I think it was about unmarried couples, inasmuch as ssm couples are unmarried by the Church's ecclesiastical definition of marriage. Please recognize the terms that are used by those whose ecclesiastical perspectives you are questioning, especially after they have been explained.

Didn't you see my other posts, many of them repeating themselves, about Matthew 5:32? Please take another look through the thread and I will be happy to address any specifics arising from your reply to any of those posts, using the Quote function to ensure context. So many others have evidently been keeping up; I think you can. Thank you.

 

[The Nehor]

32 minutes ago, MiserereNobis said:

As Hamlet says to Polonius: "Use every man after his desert, and who should ’scape whipping?"

As a member of The Elite Shakespeare Brethren, I'd like to point out that the phrase is "just deserts" (pronounced like desserts) coming from deserve. But hey, if it is raspberry cheesecake or bread pudding or tiramisu, I'll certainly take my just desserts

 

I was spelling it phonetically. Okay, that makes no sense either.

[MiserereNobis]

Just now, CV75 said:

I think it was about unmarried couples, inasmuch as ssm couples are unmarried by the Church's ecclesiastical definition of marriage. Please recognize the terms that are used by those whose ecclesiastical perspectives you are questioning, especially after they have been explained.

Didn't you see my other posts, many of them repeating themselves, about Matthew 5:32? Please take another look through the thread and I will be happy to address any specifics arising from your reply to any of those posts, using the Quote function to ensure context. So many others have evidently been keeping up; I think you can. Thank you.

 

My understanding of @california boy's argument is this (correct me if I'm wrong california):

A gay member of the LDS church is told that being gay (or having SSA or whatever the appropriate term is) is not a sin, but acting on it is. Since they cannot act on it, then the only choice for them is a life of celibacy. If they act on their sexual/romantic desires, either in or out of legal marriage, they have committed a sin.

A straight member of the LDS church is told if they have a divorce, they can remarry and it is not a sin. However, Jesus says that remarriage after a divorce is adultery, which is a sin. So, if one were to follow the words of Jesus in the NT, the person who divorces must live the rest of their life in celibacy, just like the gay member. If the straight divorced member acts on their sexual/romantic desires, either in or out of legal marriage, they have committed a sin. This, I think, is where he is drawing the parallel.

Why is it ok to tell the gay member to remain celibate and the straight member that they don't have to, they can remarry, when Jesus clearly said no, remarriage is a sexual sin?

Again, correct me if I am wrong, california.

 

[california boy]

2 minutes ago, CV75 said:

I think it was about unmarried couples, inasmuch as ssm couples are unmarried by the Church's ecclesiastical definition of marriage. Please recognize the terms that are used by those whose ecclesiastical perspectives you are questioning, especially after they have been explained.

Didn't you see my other posts, many of them repeating themselves, about Matthew 5:32? Please take another look through the thread and I will be happy to address any specifics arising from your reply to any of those posts, using the Quote function to ensure context. So many others have evidently been keeping up; I think you can. Thank you.

 

No.  I am not tslking about SSM.   I am talking about who Christ addressed,  Straight Marriages.  There were no SSM during the time Christ was on the earth.

You have yet to address why straight couples should ever be allowed to remarry, when by doing so, Christ specifically said they would be committing adultery.  Why doesn't the Church require anyone who is divorced to be celibate the rest of their lives

[california boy]

3 minutes ago, MiserereNobis said:

My understanding of @california boy's argument is this (correct me if I'm wrong california):

A gay member of the LDS church is told that being gay (or having SSA or whatever the appropriate term is) is not a sin, but acting on it is. Since they cannot act on it, then the only choice for them is a life of celibacy. If they act on their sexual/romantic desires, either in or out of legal marriage, they have committed a sin.

A straight member of the LDS church is told if they have a divorce, they can remarry and it is not a sin. However, Jesus says that remarriage after a divorce is adultery, which is a sin. So, if one were to follow the words of Jesus in the NT, the person who divorces must live the rest of their life in celibacy, just like the gay member. If the straight divorced member acts on their sexual/romantic desires, either in or out of legal marriage, they have committed a sin. This, I think, is where he is drawing the parallel.

Why is it ok to tell the gay member to remain celibate and the straight member that they don't have to, they can remarry, when Jesus clearly said no, remarriage is a sexual sin?

Again, correct me if I am wrong, california.

 

 

You are EXACTLY right.  That is the question.

[The Nehor]

16 minutes ago, Joshua Valentine said:

Yes, what does the LDS Church teach about all of Jesus´ eunuch talk? vs. have to get married?

To your last question: but this young and thus (while not absolutely, certainly more probably) stupid is the M.O. for the LDS Church dating/marriage scene. That is, the LDS Church and culture encourage marrying young and with hopefully helpful prayer (to help overcome the young and stupid factor).

I´ll have to try to look up some sources, but I seem to remember hearing teachings that seemed to indicate that it wasn´t so important who you married as long as they were a devout LDS (maybe/probably that you were led to marry by God?), that in this scenario love would grow. If this is a teaching of the LDS leadership, then should they not uphold Jesus´ commandment not to divorce except for fornication? IF (and I will try to find confirmation of this vague memory of mine) being a devout follower of the LDS God is sufficient to be married to, then it should be sufficient to stay in a marriage. And if the LDS God´s glory includes the happiness of humans, then it would seem that being a devout LDS member (who does not fornicate) should be enough to sustain a generally happy marriage, even. 

President Kimball, and the comment was in reference to those who felt incompatible and were already married who wanted a divorce, not as dating advice for single people.

[CV75]

21 minutes ago, MiserereNobis said:

My understanding of @california boy's argument is this (correct me if I'm wrong california):

A gay member of the LDS church is told that being gay (or having SSA or whatever the appropriate term is) is not a sin, but acting on it is. Since they cannot act on it, then the only choice for them is a life of celibacy. If they act on their sexual/romantic desires, either in or out of legal marriage, they have committed a sin.

A straight member of the LDS church is told if they have a divorce, they can remarry and it is not a sin. However, Jesus says that remarriage after a divorce is adultery, which is a sin. So, if one were to follow the words of Jesus in the NT, the person who divorces must live the rest of their life in celibacy, just like the gay member. If the straight divorced member acts on their sexual/romantic desires, either in or out of legal marriage, they have committed a sin. This, I think, is where he is drawing the parallel.

Why is it ok to tell the gay member to remain celibate and the straight member that they don't have to, they can remarry, when Jesus clearly said no, remarriage is a sexual sin?

Again, correct me if I am wrong, california.

"The kind of marriage required for exaltation—eternal in duration and godlike in quality—does not contemplate divorce. In the temples of the Lord, couples are married for all eternity. But some marriages do not progress toward that ideal. Because “of the hardness of [our] hearts,” the Lord does not currently enforce the consequences of the celestial standard. He permits divorced persons to marry again without the stain of immorality specified in the higher law. Unless a divorced member has committed serious transgressions, he or she can become eligible for a temple recommend under the same worthiness standards that apply to other members."

I noticed he uses the phrase "The kind of marriage required for exaltation..." I think there are likewise "kinds [of adultery] required for [excommunication].

"...some marriages do not progress toward that ideal," and some adultery does not progress toward that nadir of depravity.

It seems He permits us to progress in either direction until the last day. There are many in the terrestrial and celestial kingdoms who have not committed the kind(s) of adultery, or at least have repented of it, that lands the unrepentant in the telestial kingdom.

I think the marriage standard set by Christ during his mortal ministry is true. Mortality is also a “space for repentance” or “a probationary state; a time to prepare to meet God; a time to prepare for that endless state which has been spoken of by us, which is after the resurrection of the dead.” Otherwise we would all de destroyed very early in life, at the first “hardness of [our] hearts.”

Why does the Lord say, “Neither do I condemn thee: go, and sin no more,” to those still in mortality? No matter the kind of adultery they commit? No matter if they are excommunicated? No matter how often the imperfect are deemed “worthy” to partake of the sacrament – and even not?

The Church is not ignoring this standard at all, but recognizing the space for repentance. And yes, this is also compassionate, and no matter the degree of fornication and adultery committed, the guilty will “go, and sin no more.”

The term adultery is used differently, or regather broadly, in comparing Matthew 5:28, 5:32 and Mark 10:11-12. So where ssm is not recognized by the Church as marriage, there is no adultery (strictly speaking) when the partners break their sexual exclusivity to each other, but there is sexual sin (broadly speaking). We are not disregarding what Jesus is saying in these verses, nor everything else He has said in every other verse, and what was reported as His attitude and response to sin and sinners in every other verse. I would say that spiritual connection with Him is the important thing and how we get to understand His complete message from the various seemingly contradictory scriptural passages. Through His Atonement, that which is not lawful on any level can still be forgiven, and the forgiven can enter (or return) to the highest law, whichever the case may be.

In these verses, Jesus did not say that divorce and adultery could not be forgiven. We learn from the scriptures that any sealing, unbinding, forgiving and healing must come by Jesus (His authority).

One step in divorced people repenting is made by keeping future marriage covenants should they remarry. They can do that by being chaste in that marriage. It does not require celibacy. They repent on all levels as anyone else must for any other sin, commensurate with the form and seriousness of the sin, which in this case is adultery (“I cannot tell you all the things whereby ye may commit [adultery]; for there are divers ways and means, even so many that I cannot number them”).

Adultery is serous because of the particular covenant it is breaking, which involves the man, woman and God. In the scriptures, idolatry is often called and compared to adultery for he same reason (breaking God's covenant physically and spiritually). Keeping the covenant of marriage after it is broken can still be accomplished.

Other covenants with God must also be kept, and repaired if broken, but marriage is uniquely significant because as the highest priesthood order, the man and the woman are making it together with God, not individually as with all the other covenants.

So if married people divorce, and their remarriage is a type of adultery, they can repent of either by living chaste lives going forward, remarried or not.

And maybe this is too “higher-lawish,” but when a couple divorces for the wrong reasons, they are in essence causing their former spouse to commit adultery should they remarry, which is just as bad as committing it, which is perhaps why, in the way the covenant is structured between two people and God, what God forbids can be forgiven; part of the sin is on the causing spouse's head even if he doesn't remarry. But once they’ve hit that point of depravity and are willing to do that, they need to repent even if they don’t get a divorce. People often get divorced “in and because of the hardness their hearts” while technically remaining married, whether they are sealed by proper authority or not.

21 minutes ago, california boy said:

No.  I am not tslking about SSM.   I am talking about who Christ addressed,  Straight Marriages.  There were no SSM during the time Christ was on the earth.

You have yet to address why straight couples should ever be allowed to remarry, when by doing so, Christ specifically said they would be committing adultery.  Why doesn't the Church require anyone who is divorced to be celibate the rest of their lives

Stop saying I have yet to address it. I've copied everything above for MN from past posts. That should make it easy for you. If you don't understand something, ask a good question rather than just say I haven't addressed it.

[cacheman]

28 minutes ago, Wade Englund said:

No. But, technically,, the "easy divorce requirements" only apply to the non-legal plural marriages. The first/legal wife of a plural marriage would be subject to the legal requirements, rather than the ecclesiastic requirements.  Non-LDS women wouldn't be scampering in from all over the nation to take advantage of the ecclesiastical requirement, since it wouldn't apply. Sorry!

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

You might want to read that article again.  It does mention the lenient territorial divorce laws.  These would presumably refer to civil divorces.  You might be interested to research the "divorce bureaus" between the years 1875 and 1878.  I don't know how the divorce numbers in Utah compared with the rest of the country,  but it appears to have been a divorce destination for some. 

https://books.google.com/books?id=BBk-AQAAMAAJ&pg=PA206&lpg=PA206&dq="divorce+bureau"+utah+territory&source=bl&ots=JJpHnSnOdo&sig=ACfU3U2IyJTwh0iNb53r9zvDB8qlOoFK0Q&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjr6drdmaviAhWkY98KHUXCAkMQ6AEwC3oECAgQAQ#v=onepage&q="divorce bureau" utah territory&f=false 

[Calm]

6 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

President Kimball, and the comment was in reference to those who felt incompatible and were already married who wanted a divorce, not as dating advice for single people.

His advice for those getting married tended to be more detailed in that he thought they should be from similar backgrounds of faith, education, economic status, and race (back in his day interracial marriages were put under a lot more stress than today, so if that was his reasoning it is consistent with his other recommendations) are the ones I remember.

Given stats show greater disparity has higher divorce rates, encouraging coming from similar backgrounds is not unreasonable.  If they don't, I think it even more important to discuss expectations prior to marriage and agreeing on a plan (while willing to adapt when necessary because predicting everything isn't possible) such as expected family numbers, household responsibilities, financial plans, future education and career plans, social expectations including church involvement, where one wants to end up living...high or low mobility preferences, political views and planned method to keep them congenial if they differ, etc.  And even food preferences (I would have preferred to go vegetarian when I was younger, but husband wouldn't and I was too lazy and not committed enough to cook differently for us...and if I had married someone like my dad who hated the stuff I loved to cook...)

Church's current advice under "Mate Selection":

https://www.lds.org/study/manual/eternal-marriage-student-manual/mate-selection?lang=eng

Common "background factors" is still suggested, but without listing what those might be.

[bluebell]

57 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

Yes and no.

I don't believe God will force two people to stay in a covenant.  We always have agency to break our covenants.

But the idea we can get out of an eternal covenant which neither party has violated just so we can pick a new one, that I sincerely doubt,  just as Brigham did.

If two people don't want to be together though, does it matter why?  I mean, yes, repentance would be necessary for getting a divorce when God did not condone it, but after that repentance was complete, if the two people don't want to be sealed (and are perhaps sealed to others), then God will not force them to be together, right?  

[USU78]

Without sincere mutual consent sealed by the Holy Spirit of Promise, how could any sealing survive death?

[Glenn101]

9 hours ago, The Nehor said:

A lot of people are going to hell.

For a while, at least.

[bluebell]

9 minutes ago, USU78 said:

Without sincere mutual consent sealed by the Holy Spirit of Promise, how could any sealing survive death?

Exactly.  How permanent is any sealing before it is sealed by the Holy Spirit of Promise?  Right now, for example, the church seals women to every husband they've ever had, under the belief that some of those sealings don't mean anything.  

I agree that our sealing covenants mean something but at the same time and in some significant ways, they are promises for what can be and not declarations of what is.  

[Wade Englund]

2 hours ago, cacheman said:

You might want to read that article again.  It does mention the lenient territorial divorce laws.  These would presumably refer to civil divorces.  You might be interested to research the "divorce bureaus" between the years 1875 and 1878.  I don't know how the divorce numbers in Utah compared with the rest of the country,  but it appears to have been a divorce destination for some. 

https://books.google.com/books?id=BBk-AQAAMAAJ&pg=PA206&lpg=PA206&dq="divorce+bureau"+utah+territory&source=bl&ots=JJpHnSnOdo&sig=ACfU3U2IyJTwh0iNb53r9zvDB8qlOoFK0Q&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjr6drdmaviAhWkY98KHUXCAkMQ6AEwC3oECAgQAQ#v=onepage&q="divorce bureau" utah territory&f=false 

That is nice. However, it isn't my case to make. I was the one who issued the CFR. What I am primarily questioning is whether the divorce rates were higher than in other states, and whether those alleged high rates made Utah a Vegas-like divorce magnet, and whether that alleged magnet could be laid at the feet of Brigham Young.

According to the report, the first divorce law in Utah was enacted in 1852. And, it evidently contained two flaws which enabled certain probate courts to game the system. 

Yet, as also indicated, "It is simple justice to the Mormon people , however, to say that they did not make any single misuse of these lenient provisions, for up to 1875, comparatively few divorces were granted."  

In 1886 and 87, though, Utah did become a "dumping ground for fraudulent suits from the East."  

Divorces jumped from 295 in 1875, to  709 in 1876, and 914 in 1877.(ibid)  How that compares to other states is open to question.

Now, when this spike, due to abuse in the probate courts , came to the public's attention, the adverse reaction was across the board (including "pulpits") , and legislative action was quickly taken to close down the loop holes and the "Divorce Bureau" practice. 

So, for two of the 25 years in question, both of which were 20 years after Brigham had left state office, Juliann was correct about the Vegas metaphor.  Beyond that....fake news.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited May 21, 2019 by Wade Englund

[JLHPROF]

1 hour ago, bluebell said:

If two people don't want to be together though, does it matter why?  I mean, yes, repentance would be necessary for getting a divorce when God did not condone it, but after that repentance was complete, if the two people don't want to be sealed (and are perhaps sealed to others), then God will not force them to be together, right?  

This brings a scripture to mind.

2 Nephi 28:8 And there shall also be many which shall say: Eat, drink, and be merry; nevertheless, fear God—he will justify in committing a little sin; yea, lie a little, take the advantage of one because of his words, dig a pit for thy neighbor; there is no harm in this; and do all these things, for tomorrow we die; and if it so be that we are guilty, God will beat us with a few stripes, and at last we shall be saved in the kingdom of God.

So we reject the eternal covenant we entered into of our own free will and choice, a clear sin.  But then we take our stripes (ie, go through repentance).  And then God will let us get a brand new covenant of our choosing.  Not buying it.

I don't know that we can actually repent of walking away from a valid eternal covenant without returning to that covenant.    It seems patently insincere to claim repentance as long as you get what you want.  

[Anakin7]

So my wife and I have been married previously [Civil marriages, my marriage 35 years ago ended in an annulment ] are we in adultery according to Jesus as found in the N.T ?. Thank you in advance.

The Atonement It Is The Central Doctrine

Washing My Garment/Robe In His Blood

In His Eternal Debt/Grace

Anakin7

LDS, Saint, Christian, Sentinel, Son Of Thunder, Kryptonian, Warrior

 

[Wade Englund]

37 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

So we reject the eternal covenant we entered into of our own free will and choice, a clear sin.  But then we take our stripes (ie, go through repentance).  And then God will let us get a brand new covenant of our choosing.  Not buying it.

Given that I have close family members who have reluctantly gone through the process of temple divorce, later to find wonderful spouses, to which they became sealed, it is a comfort to know that Christ will be our merciful arbiter and judge rather than you.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[california boy]

8 hours ago, CV75 said:

"The kind of marriage required for exaltation—eternal in duration and godlike in quality—does not contemplate divorce. In the temples of the Lord, couples are married for all eternity. But some marriages do not progress toward that ideal. Because “of the hardness of [our] hearts,” the Lord does not currently enforce the consequences of the celestial standard. He permits divorced persons to marry again without the stain of immorality specified in the higher law. Unless a divorced member has committed serious transgressions, he or she can become eligible for a temple recommend under the same worthiness standards that apply to other members."

I noticed he uses the phrase "The kind of marriage required for exaltation..." I think there are likewise "kinds [of adultery] required for [excommunication].

"...some marriages do not progress toward that ideal," and some adultery does not progress toward that nadir of depravity.

It seems He permits us to progress in either direction until the last day. There are many in the terrestrial and celestial kingdoms who have not committed the kind(s) of adultery, or at least have repented of it, that lands the unrepentant in the telestial kingdom.

 

The reason why I keep saying that you aren't addressing the issues I bring up is because you are not explaining why you can invent an entirely different set of rules if you are straight and remarry.  For example, during the life of Christ, there were no eternal marriages going on.  So Christ is only talking about civil marriage.  None of those marriages are eternal in duration.  They will all end at death.  It is divorce from those marriages where a second marriage is committing a sexual sin.  Yet the church allows such second marriages and allows them to live in adultery as defined by Christ.

And this reasoning:  "But some mariages do not progress toward that ideal".  ALL divorce is not going to progress towards the ideal.  Yet, Christ did not give that loophole that you invented.  And doesn't the church give hope to those that aren't married on this earth that they will find someone in the next?  Why don't the same rules apply to those that divorce.  Be celibate the rest of your life.  Anything other than that is committing adultery according to Christ. 

You also seem to be suggesting that Christ permits temple divorce since they are the only ones that endure, but a civil marraige divorce is not allowed because it will not endure.  Really?  Is that the Church's position on divorce?  

Quote

I think the marriage standard set by Christ during his mortal ministry is true. Mortality is also a “space for repentance” or “a probationary state; a time to prepare to meet God; a time to prepare for that endless state which has been spoken of by us, which is after the resurrection of the dead.” Otherwise we would all de destroyed very early in life, at the first “hardness of [our] hearts.”

Why does the Lord say, “Neither do I condemn thee: go, and sin no more,” to those still in mortality? No matter the kind of adultery they commit? No matter if they are excommunicated? No matter how often the imperfect are deemed “worthy” to partake of the sacrament – and even not?

The Church is not ignoring this standard at all, but recognizing the space for repentance. And yes, this is also compassionate, and no matter the degree of fornication and adultery committed, the guilty will “go, and sin no more.”

 

You still aren't addressing the issues I bring up.  Repentance is not continuing in adultery, which a second marriage would be.  Repentance is stop doing what is immoral and promise never to do it again.  That would only be accomplished only by celibacy.  "Go thy way and sin no more" doesn't mean go back to your adulterous living with your second or third husband.

Quote

The term adultery is used differently, or regather broadly, in comparing Matthew 5:28, 5:32 and Mark 10:11-12. So where ssm is not recognized by the Church as marriage, there is no adultery (strictly speaking) when the partners break their sexual exclusivity to each other, but there is sexual sin (broadly speaking). We are not disregarding what Jesus is saying in these verses, nor everything else He has said in every other verse, and what was reported as His attitude and response to sin and sinners in every other verse. I would say that spiritual connection with Him is the important thing and how we get to understand His complete message from the various seemingly contradictory scriptural passages. Through His Atonement, that which is not lawful on any level can still be forgiven, and the forgiven can enter (or return) to the highest law, whichever the case may be.

 

When you say this, are you talking about all marriages?  Because if that is the case, then you seem to be making a case to allow gay marriage.

Quote

In these verses, Jesus did not say that divorce and adultery could not be forgiven. We learn from the scriptures that any sealing, unbinding, forgiving and healing must come by Jesus (His authority).

Adultery is serous because of the particular covenant it is breaking, which involves the man, woman and God. In the scriptures, idolatry is often called and compared to adultery for he same reason (breaking God's covenant physically and spiritually). Keeping the covenant of marriage after it is broken can still be accomplished.

Other covenants with God must also be kept, and repaired if broken, but marriage is uniquely significant because as the highest priesthood order, the man and the woman are making it together with God, not individually as with all the other covenants.

So if married people divorce, and their remarriage is a type of adultery, they can repent of either by living chaste lives going forward, remarried or not.

 

Forgiveness and repentance does not come from continuing to live in an adulterous second marriage.  It only comes from ceasing to sin, which can only be through living a life of celibacy.  Or do straight couples get some kind of special pass where they can continue to live in adulltery and sin, but can repent.  This is the question that you continually are not answering.

 

Quote

And maybe this is too “higher-lawish,” but when a couple divorces for the wrong reasons, they are in essence causing their former spouse to commit adultery should they remarry, which is just as bad as committing it, which is perhaps why, in the way the covenant is structured between two people and God, what God forbids can be forgiven; part of the sin is on the causing spouse's head even if he doesn't remarry. But once they’ve hit that point of depravity and are willing to do that, they need to repent even if they don’t get a divorce. People often get divorced “in and because of the hardness their hearts” while technically remaining married, whether they are sealed by proper authority or not.

Stop saying I have yet to address it. I've copied everything above for MN from past posts. That should make it easy for you. If you don't understand something, ask a good question rather than just say I haven't addressed it.

 

Once again, Christ does not forbid divorce.  So no matter what the reason for the divorce is really unimportant. When the second marriage takes place, then that is where living in adultery occurs.  You keep allowing for adultery to continue by staying in that second marriage, but keep saying that repentance is possible.  Maybe it is just me, but I thought you had to quit sinning, (celibacy) before you could repent.  If Christ thought that a second marriage was not living in adultery then why did he specifically forbid it?  He didn't say that a second marriage was a pathway to repentance.  He said a secind marriage was a moral sin.  How can you claim that you have addressed the issues I bring up when you keep asserting that you can continue to commit adultery yet somehow still repent?  

I don't think I can be any clearer on what the issue is and why you haven't answered it.  

Edited May 21, 2019 by california boy