Stargazer Posted September 11, 2015 Posted September 11, 2015 This verse actually doesn't say that the Lord didn't divorce Israel. Rather, it gives the reason she was "put away" which was because of their transgressions that he did and that they sold themselves, God didn't sell them. Jeremiah 3:8 confirms this statement with, "I gave faithless Israel her certificate of divorce and sent her away because of all her adulteries." Okay, you've convinced me. But it appears that He will take her back after her tribulation is complete.
danielwoods Posted September 11, 2015 Posted September 11, 2015 Okay, you've convinced me. But it appears that He will take her back after her tribulation is complete. Right, the book of revelation gives us a glimpse of this event.
Rivers Posted September 12, 2015 Posted September 12, 2015 Christ was teaching the people to live has if they were already living in the kingdom of heaven. In the kingdom of heaven there is no divorce. Unfortunately, this is a law we are unable to live at this time. But we should still do our best to make our marriages work.
Tacenda Posted September 12, 2015 Posted September 12, 2015 (edited) Honestly who today gets a divorce when there has been NO hanky panky on the side? Does that even happen?Case closed. That's pretty close minded and undermines humans to be only about physicality. Why couldn't someome divorce over other things such as incompatability or something else? Edited to add: Just noticed the wink...whew! Edited September 13, 2015 by Tacenda
Glenn101 Posted September 13, 2015 Posted September 13, 2015 I think that it might be instructive to remember this particular verse when talking the topic of marriage, divorce, and adultery. "Mark 10:9 What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder." Since all marriages not performed in the new and everlasting covenant are essentially civil marriages, not sealed but only accepted by God, for a limited time, no matter who performs the ceremony, that information provided by Jesus on the subject should be taken in light of those who have been sealed in the temple. Looking at it from that aspect, a person who is is sealed to another, then obtains a civil divorce and marries another person civilly is committing adultery in the eyes of God, although not legally. Only when a sealing is cancelled (not divorced) by the person holding the sealing keys (the current prophet at the head of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints) are the two free in the eyes of the Lord to remarry without committing adultery. Glenn
ALarson Posted September 13, 2015 Posted September 13, 2015 (edited) Only when a sealing is cancelled (not divorced) by the person holding the sealing keys (the current prophet at the head of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints) are the two free in the eyes of the Lord to remarry without committing adultery. Glenn And yet, the church leaders don't cancel the sealing between a husband and wife (who have divorced) when the husband gets remarried (sealed to another woman), if the first wife is not remarried (sealed to another man). The original sealing is only cancelled when the wife gets remarried (sealed) to a second husband. The husband only receives what is called a clearance, not a cancellation unless the wife remarries in the temple first. So, is the husband committing adultery if he's sealed to 2 living women at the same time? I know of several cases (one right in my family) where this is the case. Edited September 13, 2015 by ALarson
Glenn101 Posted September 13, 2015 Posted September 13, 2015 And yet, the church leaders don't cancel the sealing between a husband and wife (who have divorced) when the husband gets remarried (sealed to another woman), if the first wife is not remarried (sealed to another man). The original sealing is only cancelled when the wife gets remarried (sealed) to a second husband. The husband only receives what is called a clearance, not a cancellation unless the wife remarries in the temple first. So, is the husband committing adultery if he's sealed to 2 living women at the same time? I know of several cases (one right in my family) where this is the case. The husband is technically in a plural marriage at that point. If the woman never has the sealing cancelled, she will be still sealed to the civilly divorced man in the next life. God may cancel that sealing then or not. But that is not for me to say. However, once the man has received a clearance from the First Presidency, he can be sealed to another woman without committing adultery.(I can foresee another topic developing here.) Glenn
rodheadlee Posted September 13, 2015 Posted September 13, 2015 perhaps people should be civilly married for 7 years or so before getting sealed.
The Nehor Posted September 13, 2015 Posted September 13, 2015 perhaps people should be civilly married for 7 years or so before getting sealed.perhaps people should be civilly married for 7 years or so before getting sealed.Only if they plan to be celibate for 7 years to make sure their children are born in the covenant.
california boy Posted September 13, 2015 Posted September 13, 2015 I think that it might be instructive to remember this particular verse when talking the topic of marriage, divorce, and adultery. "Mark 10:9 What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder." Since all marriages not performed in the new and everlasting covenant are essentially civil marriages, not sealed but only accepted by God, for a limited time, no matter who performs the ceremony, that information provided by Jesus on the subject should be taken in light of those who have been sealed in the temple. Looking at it from that aspect, a person who is is sealed to another, then obtains a civil divorce and marries another person civilly is committing adultery in the eyes of God, although not legally. Only when a sealing is cancelled (not divorced) by the person holding the sealing keys (the current prophet at the head of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints) are the two free in the eyes of the Lord to remarry without committing adultery. GlennIt seems to me that Christ expects everyone to be celibate if they are no longer married. He could not have been more clear in telling us that if a person remarries, they are committing adultery. That seems to be a pretty serious sin. Just how hard is it for these people who want out of marriage to be celibate for the rest of their lives and never be able to find someone to love? God is no respecter of persons. He is asking the same thing for all His gay children, except for the opportunity to have a chance for even a first marriage. So just why isn't the church demanding that these people who no longer want to be married be celibate for the rest of their lives? Anyone?? Oh yeah, too many straight people in the church. They are never going to go for that. They only want gay members to be celibate for the rest of their lives. Never mind. I am sure there is some way of rationalizing the words of Christ to make it ok to be divorced anda remarry without committing adultery. He probably wasn't even serious. 3
Glenn101 Posted September 13, 2015 Posted September 13, 2015 perhaps people should be civilly married for 7 years or so before getting sealed. I do not follow your logic there. Is it so that hey won't have to go through the possibility of committing adultery should they divorce? Wouldn't a better way be for people to date, get to know each other well enough to be as sure as possible that marriage was the right thing, both commit to the marriage 100%, be sealed for time and eternity, and live the Gospel as well as humanly possible, i.e. "endure to the end". Glenn
Glenn101 Posted September 13, 2015 Posted September 13, 2015 It seems to me that Christ expects everyone to be celibate if they are no longer married. He could not have been more clear in telling us that if a person remarries, they are committing adultery. That seems to be a pretty serious sin. Just how hard is it for these people who want out of marriage to be celibate for the rest of their lives and never be able to find someone to love? God is no respecter of persons. He is asking the same thing for all His gay children, except for the opportunity to have a chance for even a first marriage. So just why isn't the church demanding that these people who no longer want to be married be celibate for the rest of their lives? Anyone?? Oh yeah, too many straight people in the church. They are never going to go for that. They only want gay members to be celibate for the rest of their lives. Never mind. I am sure there is some way of rationalizing the words of Christ to make it ok to be divorced anda remarry without committing adultery. He probably wasn't even serious. Since latter-day revelation has clarified that bit about committing adultery your point is not well made. If you do not accept latter-day revelation on the subject, you have no point, Glenn
california boy Posted September 14, 2015 Posted September 14, 2015 Since latter-day revelation has clarified that bit about committing adultery your point is not well made. If you do not accept latter-day revelation on the subject, you have no point, Glenn Can you really point to a revelation that says divorce is ok with God? I would be very interested. Otherwise you have no point. 1
danielwoods Posted September 14, 2015 Posted September 14, 2015 Can you really point to a revelation that says divorce is ok with God? I would be very interested. Otherwise you have no point. Maybe you missed the part where Jesus said God allowed them to divorce?
rodheadlee Posted September 14, 2015 Posted September 14, 2015 Only if they plan to be celibate for 7 years to make sure their children are born in the covenant.They can't be sealed later?
The Nehor Posted September 14, 2015 Posted September 14, 2015 They can't be sealed later? I personally am not interested in denying my future children blessings for a time because I or my wife have issues.
Gray Posted September 14, 2015 Posted September 14, 2015 Maybe you missed the part where Jesus said God allowed them to divorce? "Jesus replied, “Moses permitted you to divorce your wives because your hearts were hard. But it was not this way from the beginning. I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another woman commits adultery."
cinepro Posted September 14, 2015 Posted September 14, 2015 (edited) "Jesus replied, “Moses permitted you to divorce your wives because your hearts were hard. But it was not this way from the beginning. I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another woman commits adultery." Here's the KJV: 8 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. 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 https://www.lds.org/scriptures/nt/matt/19.9?lang=engI think the ultimate answer to your question is that this rule isn't enforced because the Church members wouldn't accept it. Even the Catholics try, but had to invent the concept of "annulment" to get around it. Not to drop a bomb on the conversation, but I suspect the same thing will happen with the Church's non-acceptance of same-sex marriage. It won't be a question of whether or not the Church will accept it; it will be when we have generations of Church members who can't believe we ever didn't accept it. It would be kind of like birth control; I suspect if you read a list of statements from past Church leaders on the subject of birth control to most 18 year old LDS, most would roll their eyes. Most LDS read the scriptures quoted above and just roll their eyes. All I can say is thank goodness Floyd Weston didn't make "18 Points of the True Church" and include "Divorced men and women can't remarry unless they're divorced for adultery", because the story totally would have ended differently... Edited September 14, 2015 by cinepro 2
danielwoods Posted September 14, 2015 Posted September 14, 2015 "Jesus replied, “Moses permitted you to divorce your wives because your hearts were hard. But it was not this way from the beginning. I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another woman commits adultery." "So let us take another look at Matthew 5:31, 32, inserting a few key words in the original Greek, so that we get a proper translation of the passage.31 It hath been said, Whosoever shall put away (apoluo) his wife, let him give her a writing of divorcement (apostasion).32 But I say unto you, that whosoever shall put away (apoluo) his wife, saving for the cause of fornication, causeth her to commit adultery: and whosoever shall marry her that is divorced (apoluo, Lit. "put away") committeth adultery. To paraphrase this: The Law says that she commits adultery if she remarries without a written bill of divorcement. BUT I SAY UNTO YOU that whoever puts her away (without divorce papers; that is, unlawfully) causes her to commit adultery (if she remarries under such conditions). Thus he who simply put her out of his house without divorcing her properly is JUST AS LIABLE AS SHE IS. And whosoever marries her that has been put away (without divorce papers) also commits adultery, because he is marrying another man's wife. [Yahshua] is here condemning men who put away their wives Babylonian style (verbally), instead of putting them away in the manner prescribed by [Yahweh's] Law. Under the laws of liability, this would make him guilty of adultery if she were to remarry.So we see that the whole point of this commentary is to bring out a point of Law that had not been covered by the Pharisees in their interpretations." From:http://www.truthofyahweh.org/divorce.htm
Gray Posted September 14, 2015 Posted September 14, 2015 "So let us take another look at Matthew 5:31, 32, inserting a few key words in the original Greek, so that we get a proper translation of the passage.31 It hath been said, Whosoever shall put away (apoluo) his wife, let him give her a writing of divorcement (apostasion).32 But I say unto you, that whosoever shall put away (apoluo) his wife, saving for the cause of fornication, causeth her to commit adultery: and whosoever shall marry her that is divorced (apoluo, Lit. "put away") committeth adultery. To paraphrase this: The Law says that she commits adultery if she remarries without a written bill of divorcement. BUT I SAY UNTO YOU that whoever puts her away (without divorce papers; that is, unlawfully) causes her to commit adultery (if she remarries under such conditions). Thus he who simply put her out of his house without divorcing her properly is JUST AS LIABLE AS SHE IS. And whosoever marries her that has been put away (without divorce papers) also commits adultery, because he is marrying another man's wife. [Yahshua] is here condemning men who put away their wives Babylonian style (verbally), instead of putting them away in the manner prescribed by [Yahweh's] Law. Under the laws of liability, this would make him guilty of adultery if she were to remarry.So we see that the whole point of this commentary is to bring out a point of Law that had not been covered by the Pharisees in their interpretations." From:http://www.truthofyahweh.org/divorce.htm That's a creative reinterpretation (but I don't think it reflects authorial intent, given the context). I'm all for reinterpreting scriptures - scripture is the product of communities, not God. but notice how easy it is to come up with new ways to read them when it's your ox that's being gored.
The Nehor Posted September 14, 2015 Posted September 14, 2015 "So let us take another look at Matthew 5:31, 32, inserting a few key words in the original Greek, so that we get a proper translation of the passage.31 It hath been said, Whosoever shall put away (apoluo) his wife, let him give her a writing of divorcement (apostasion).32 But I say unto you, that whosoever shall put away (apoluo) his wife, saving for the cause of fornication, causeth her to commit adultery: and whosoever shall marry her that is divorced (apoluo, Lit. "put away") committeth adultery. To paraphrase this: The Law says that she commits adultery if she remarries without a written bill of divorcement. BUT I SAY UNTO YOU that whoever puts her away (without divorce papers; that is, unlawfully) causes her to commit adultery (if she remarries under such conditions). Thus he who simply put her out of his house without divorcing her properly is JUST AS LIABLE AS SHE IS. And whosoever marries her that has been put away (without divorce papers) also commits adultery, because he is marrying another man's wife. [Yahshua] is here condemning men who put away their wives Babylonian style (verbally), instead of putting them away in the manner prescribed by [Yahweh's] Law. Under the laws of liability, this would make him guilty of adultery if she were to remarry.So we see that the whole point of this commentary is to bring out a point of Law that had not been covered by the Pharisees in their interpretations." From:http://www.truthofyahweh.org/divorce.htmNot buying it.Jesus contrasts the Law with what he is saying (a more difficult standard) throughout this section. Yet for some reason in this particular verse he was saying that the Law was all that was required or that they are not doing the Law correctly by getting the bills of divorce? Nope. 2
danielwoods Posted September 14, 2015 Posted September 14, 2015 That's a creative reinterpretation (but I don't think it reflects authorial intent, given the context). I'm all for reinterpreting scriptures - scripture is the product of communities, not God. but notice how easy it is to come up with new ways to read them when it's your ox that's being gored. 1) historical context is ignored if one claims the passage means that divorce is adultery 2) The punishment for adultery was death, not freedom from marriage. 3) God gave the law to Moses, permitting divorce with a certificate. Jesus said he didn't come to destroy the law. Rather, it was the Code of Hammurabi that didn't use a certificate, the cultural context of the time. 4) The words "put away" in KJV and "divorce" are clearly different in this passage. 5) God himself was divorced from Israel, so it's clearly not a sin.
danielwoods Posted September 14, 2015 Posted September 14, 2015 Not buying it.Jesus contrasts the Law with what he is saying (a more difficult standard) throughout this section. Yet for some reason in this particular verse he was saying that the Law was all that was required or that they are not doing the Law correctly by getting the bills of divorce? Nope. He was saying that the man who "puts her away" and the one who married her (who wasn't divorced, but "put away"), both were guilty of sin.
The Nehor Posted September 14, 2015 Posted September 14, 2015 He was saying that the man who "puts her away" and the one who married her (who wasn't divorced, but "put away"), both were guilty of sin.Which was already spelled out in the Mosaic Law. That is why you had to have your bill of divorcement. 1
danielwoods Posted September 14, 2015 Posted September 14, 2015 Which was already spelled out in the Mosaic Law. That is why you had to have your bill of divorcement. Right. Which was not being followed at the time of Jesus. Inorder to say that divorce is adultery one has to claim that Jesus was doing away with the Mosaic Law, which Jesus claimed he wasn't doing.
Recommended Posts