Why Is Divorce & New Marriage Not Adultery?

[Brian 2.0]

In the same-sex scripture-challenge thread I brought up the aspect of divorce in the scriptures, I figured I'd start a new thread because I have some questions and it's only partly related to that thread.

 

- We have Jesus in the scriptures stating plainly that if you get divorce and remarry you are committing adultery (save in cases of infidelity) 

- Paul adds another exception in the case of unbelieving spouses who leave

 

So what has changed now in the modern church?  We obviously don't consider it adultery now.  It's not a violation of the law of chastity in regards to the temple recommend questions.

 

Is this a matter of the full law being "too hard" to follow for the saints so they get a lesser law?  Kind of like tithing vs. the united order?

 

What statements do we have from the church or prophets saying that the situation Jesus described is not adultery now?  How did that "softening" come about?  Via revelation?

Edited September 11, 2015 by Brian 2.0

[BookofMormonLuvr]

This topic came up recently in a FB group I am part of and the following article was shared:

http://www.truthofyahweh.org/divorce.htm

[Crypto]

I must have missed the memo on the change.

I was under the impression that divorce still is sin, except in a very few circumstances. 
Besides the ones you mention, abuse being one of them.

[omni]

I must have missed the memo on the change.

I was under the impression that divorce still is sin, except in a very few circumstances.

Besides the ones you mention, abuse being one of them.

The NT describes it as adultery which is much more specific than the general term of "sin". I can sin by cursing under my breath, or I can commit the "sin second only to murder" by having an affair.

[Guest]

In the same-sex scripture-challenge thread I brought up the aspect of divorce in the scriptures, I figured I'd start a new thread because I have some questions and it's only partly related to that thread.

 

- We have Jesus in the scriptures stating plainly that if you get divorce and remarry you are committing adultery (save in cases of infidelity) 

- Paul adds another exception in the case of unbelieving spouses who leave

 

So what has changed now in the modern church?  We obviously don't consider it adultery now.  It's not a violation of the law of chastity in regards to the temple recommend questions.

 

Is this a matter of the full law being "too hard" to follow for the saints so they get a lesser law?  Kind of like tithing vs. the united order?

 

What statements do we have from the church or prophets saying that the situation Jesus described is not adultery now?  How did that "softening" come about?  Via revelation?

Not sure if you are not being too literal. I do remember once while endless debating polygamy of another board, where people we ignoring the OT, and being very literal with the NT, when I pointed out the polygamy is not the same thing as bigimy and adultery. Then while using Paul's teaching and Christ's example given and related to the "woman at the well (Jacob's well) that she had seven husbands as result of he actions...my questions was; Using these two standards, how many her are polygamists? In short how many looking back on their lives, if living in the early Church would not be viewed as having many wives or husbands? Needless to say there was much of weeping, wailing and knashing of teeth...but only from the anti-Mormon posters, the mods took my side and told them, "if you can't take it don't dish it out". Either way and no matter who you ask, it is a perplexing question. Be interesting to see the responses you get.

[Stargazer]

I am of the opinion that Jesus must have been misquoted.  Making this idea of divorce leading to adultery, except in the case of adultery is almost like an oxymoron, or a contradiction.  It does not hold water.

 

I divorced my first wife because she told me if I didn't do it, she would make me wish that I had.  I wasn't sure what she meant, but I could picture her moving back to California from where we were at the time, which was Washington state, and divorcing me.  California had alimony; Washington did not.  One of the thoughts that occurred to me was that if she initiated the divorce in California, I would be obligated to pay her alimony until she remarried.  Considering as I did that there was no way any man in his right mind who would marry her (this doesn't reflect well on me, does it?), I would be paying alimony for the rest of my life.  Accordingly I initiated divorce proceedings in Washington.  And it was granted.  And she has never remarried.

 

Now, with her living back in California she did in fact meet some guy that she shacked up with, and thus she fulfilled the letter of the law -- being still married in to me, according to the rule in scripture, she therefore committed adultery.  This then freed me to re-marry without the stigma of adultery.

 

If you can't divorce save for the cause of adultery, then there is no divorce in the case of a split not due to adultery.  Thus the first partner to commit adultery frees the other partner to marry without committing adultery.  This sounds bogus.

 

I think that if what the Savior was saying was reported accurately, that it must be understood from the customs of the day among the Jews.  And in that day it was customary that only a man could initiate the divorce, and to do so at his sole option, for any reason, without any recourse by the wife.  "I divorce you!" said three times was said to do it.  This is clearly wrong, except for adultery or infidelity -- and on the wife's part, I must add.  Since it was still solely at the husband's discretion.  She couldn't divorce him at all, for any cause, even for adultery.  The Savior was trying to remove the inequity of the divorce customs of the time, not to make it impossible to get a divorce in all cases.

[Calm]

This topic came up recently in a FB group I am part of and the following article was shared:

http://www.truthofyahweh.org/divorce.htm

Easy to understand and looks logical, but is its information correct?  Who is the author?  What are his sources?

[JAHS]

 

Mark 10: 2-12

 

2 And the Pharisees came to him, and asked him, Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife? tempting him. 

3 And he answered and said unto them, What did Moses command you? 

4 And they said, Moses suffered to write a bill of divorcement, and to put her away.

5 And Jesus answered and said unto them, For the hardness of your heart he wrote you this precept. 

6 But from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female. 

7 For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and cleave to his wife;

8 And they twain shall be one flesh: so then they are no more twain, but one flesh.

9 What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.

10 And in the house his disciples asked him again of the same matter.

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

12 And if a woman shall put away her husband, and be married to another, she committeth adultery. (Mark 10:2-12)

 

In verse 9 Jesus said:

"What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder."

 

In a perfect world Jesus would not want anyone to get divorced. But there were and are times, as in the time of Moses, where divorce is allowed because of the "hardness of your hearts" (See verses 4 and 5).

 

Unfortunately in our day many people, including LDS Church members, have hardness in their hearts, and so, as in the day of Moses, God has allowed divorce and remarriage, when deemed necessary, although it was never intended to be.

[Calm]

I am of the opinion that Jesus must have been misquoted.  Making this idea of divorce leading to adultery, except in the case of adultery is almost like an oxymoron, or a contradiction.  It does not hold water....

The Facebook link follows some of the same logic you use here and supports it by pointing the translation is faulty and shows what it means when using the greater precision of language the original words used according to the author.  I will be interested to learn if its interpretation is wishful or accurate or in between.

[danielwoods]

Romans 8:1 "There is therefore now no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit.

2 For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus hath made me free from the law of sin and death."

[Stargazer]

The Facebook link follows some of the same logic you use here and supports it by pointing the translation is faulty and shows what it means when using the greater precision of language the original words used according to the author.  I will be interested to learn if its interpretation is wishful or accurate or in between.

 

Being quite lazy, I did not visit the link, so I guess I feel some vindication of my reasoning.  Assuming I was not full of hot air.

[Brian 2.0]

Unfortunately in our day many people, including LDS Church members, have hardness in their hearts, and so, as in the day of Moses, God has allowed divorce and remarriage, when deemed necessary, although it was never intended to be.

 

 

If this is the case I'm curious when God gave that allowance.  Has is been stated that this is the case?  Was the full law in force in the church is Christ day through the apostasy?  Did the restoration begin with this assumed stance that God is allowing it in our times?

[JulieM]

I must have missed the memo on the change.

I was under the impression that divorce still is sin, except in a very few circumstances..

I don't think that's still the case. As has been posted and discussed on here a few times, the first 6 Prophets of our church were divorced. Edited September 11, 2015 by JulieM

[JAHS]

If this is the case I'm curious when God gave that allowance.  Has is been stated that this is the case?  Was the full law in force in the church is Christ day through the apostasy?  Did the restoration begin with this assumed stance that God is allowing it in our times?

I don't know when. I have just heard a few church leaders provide this justification for allowing divorce. 

 

Elder Dallin H Oaks

"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."  (April 2007 conference)

[danielwoods]

If this is the case I'm curious when God gave that allowance.  Has is been stated that this is the case?  Was the full law in force in the church is Christ day through the apostasy?  Did the restoration begin with this assumed stance that God is allowing it in our times?

 

Even God divorced Israel. 

 

"Israel violated this contract, being incapable of full obedience, and refused to repent; and thus, her Husband divorced her and sent her out of His house (Jer. 3:8; Hosea 2:2).

Because [Yahweh] Himself is a divorcee, we can safely say that divorce itself is not a sin. It is the result of sin, or violation of the contract. It is the final solution to the problem when all else fails, and when reconciliation is impossible."

 

http://www.truthofyahweh.org/divorce.htm

[Brian 2.0]

I don't know when. I have just heard a few church leaders provide this justification for allowing divorce.

Elder Dallin H Oaks

"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." (April 2007 conference)

Solid quote. Thanks.

It raises the interesting of a higher law, but because of "hardness of hearts" it's okay we aren't living it and it's not counted as something we necessarily seek forgiveness for.

What others things fall into that category? Tithing v Unitied Order are all I can think of.

[Thinking]

The NT describes it as adultery which is much more specific than the general term of "sin". I can sin by cursing under my breath, or I can commit the "sin second only to murder" by having an affair.

 

Curious. Do other religions consider adultery the sin second only to murder, or just LDS?

[Stargazer]

Even God divorced Israel. 

 

"Israel violated this contract, being incapable of full obedience, and refused to repent; and thus, her Husband divorced her and sent her out of His house (Jer. 3:8; Hosea 2:2).

Because [Yahweh] Himself is a divorcee, we can safely say that divorce itself is not a sin. It is the result of sin, or violation of the contract. It is the final solution to the problem when all else fails, and when reconciliation is impossible."

 

http://www.truthofyahweh.org/divorce.htm

 

No, Yahweh is not a divorcee, actually.  Isaiah makes clear that the estrangement is a temporary separation and not a divorcement, when it is asked "Where is the bill of your mother's divorcement?"

 

1 Thus saith the Lord, Where is the bill of your mother’s divorcement, whom I have put away? or which of my creditors is it to whom I have sold you? Behold, for your iniquities have ye sold yourselves, and for your transgressions is your mother put away.

 

Isaiah 50:1

[3DOP]

In the same-sex scripture-challenge thread I brought up the aspect of divorce in the scriptures, I figured I'd start a new thread because I have some questions and it's only partly related to that thread.

 

- We have Jesus in the scriptures stating plainly that if you get divorce and remarry you are committing adultery (save in cases of infidelity) 

- Paul adds another exception in the case of unbelieving spouses who leave

 

So what has changed now in the modern church?  We obviously don't consider it adultery now.  It's not a violation of the law of chastity in regards to the temple recommend questions.

 

Is this a matter of the full law being "too hard" to follow for the saints so they get a lesser law?  Kind of like tithing vs. the united order?

 

What statements do we have from the church or prophets saying that the situation Jesus described is not adultery now?  How did that "softening" come about?  Via revelation?

 

Sts. Thomas More and John Fisher had their heads cut off rather than agree with King Henry VIII that he had a right to divorce his queen and remarry, even for the apparent expedient of having a male heir. The Catholic Church still teaches as she did then, that remarriage after divorce is adultery. That is why England broke with Rome and the monarch of England is the head of the Anglican Church.

[Storm Rider]

In the same-sex scripture-challenge thread I brought up the aspect of divorce in the scriptures, I figured I'd start a new thread because I have some questions and it's only partly related to that thread.

 

- We have Jesus in the scriptures stating plainly that if you get divorce and remarry you are committing adultery (save in cases of infidelity) 

- Paul adds another exception in the case of unbelieving spouses who leave

 

So what has changed now in the modern church?  We obviously don't consider it adultery now.  It's not a violation of the law of chastity in regards to the temple recommend questions.

 

Is this a matter of the full law being "too hard" to follow for the saints so they get a lesser law?  Kind of like tithing vs. the united order?

 

What statements do we have from the church or prophets saying that the situation Jesus described is not adultery now?  How did that "softening" come about?  Via revelation?

 

Though there is obvious room for debate on the meaning, intent, and context of the scriptures you have used, one thing is clear to me.  Divorce has become far too common among the saints and there is a great need for repentance.  Though I believe there are acceptable reasons for divorce, too often individuals are too casual about what it means to be married and what it means to be sealed to another person.  

 

We need to make sure we teach our children and grandchildren the importance of marriage and what it means to engage this ordinance.  We can fall in love and we can fall out of love with another and that has nothing to do with marriage.  Marriage is commitment, loyalty, unwavering support; and love makes it so much easier.  We need to be committed to doing and repeating the kinds of actions that make falling in love constant in a marriage; it makes it easier.  

 

Love is not infatuation. I think people like being infatuated with another.  When their marriage moves beyond infatuation they begin to think they are not in love and then behave as if they do not care for their spouse.  This immature view of marriage too often leads to divorce before maturity blossoms and grows. 

[Duncan]

Though there is obvious room for debate on the meaning, intent, and context of the scriptures you have used, one thing is clear to me.  Divorce has become far too common among the saints and there is a great need for repentance.  Though I believe there are acceptable reasons for divorce, too often individuals are too casual about what it means to be married and what it means to be sealed to another person.  

 

We need to make sure we teach our children and grandchildren the importance of marriage and what it means to engage this ordinance.  We can fall in love and we can fall out of love with another and that has nothing to do with marriage.  Marriage is commitment, loyalty, unwavering support; and love makes it so much easier.  We need to be committed to doing and repeating the kinds of actions that make falling in love constant in a marriage; it makes it easier.  

 

Love is not infatuation. I think people like being infatuated with another.  When their marriage moves beyond infatuation they begin to think they are not in love and then behave as if they do not care for their spouse.  This immature view of marriage too often leads to divorce before maturity blossoms and grows. 

 

 

plus there is TOO much pressure to get married. I remember when I was engaged we had to take this Marriage Prep. class during sunday school time and honestly it wasn't all that fantastic and it didn't prepare you for marriage really. I think it would have be worthwhile to talk about what is love and what isn't? budgets, child raising, how to handle unexpected surprises like cheating, can't have kids, spouse leaving the church. To me that's is marriage prep

[Gray]

Because a fundamentalist approach to Jesus' teachings on divorce would be too odious for people who are just like us. We understand them, can put ourselves in their shoes, and understand that following such a teaching would be a great hardship. Sometimes there are good reasons, other than infidelity, to divorce and remarry. 

 

But a fundamentalist (and context-free) approach to Paul's views on homosexuality doesn't affect people like us, and we don't really understand what kind of hardship it lays on them, so we can go ahead and be selectively fundamentalist on this issue. No skin off our nose. 

Edited September 11, 2015 by Gray

[mfbukowski]

In the same-sex scripture-challenge thread I brought up the aspect of divorce in the scriptures, I figured I'd start a new thread because I have some questions and it's only partly related to that thread.

 

- We have Jesus in the scriptures stating plainly that if you get divorce and remarry you are committing adultery (save in cases of infidelity) 

- Paul adds another exception in the case of unbelieving spouses who leave

 

So what has changed now in the modern church?  We obviously don't consider it adultery now.  It's not a violation of the law of chastity in regards to the temple recommend questions.

 

Is this a matter of the full law being "too hard" to follow for the saints so they get a lesser law?  Kind of like tithing vs. the united order?

 

What statements do we have from the church or prophets saying that the situation Jesus described is not adultery now?  How did that "softening" come about?  Via revelation?

Honestly who today gets a divorce when there has been NO hanky panky on the side?  Does that even happen?

 

Case closed. 

[JAHS]

Solid quote. Thanks.

It raises the interesting of a higher law, but because of "hardness of hearts" it's okay we aren't living it and it's not counted as something we necessarily seek forgiveness for.

What others things fall into that category? Tithing v Unitied Order are all I can think of.

 

Living a life that might cause one to be translated, like the city of Enoch. (Moses 7: 69)

or having one's calling and election made sure.

[danielwoods]

No, Yahweh is not a divorcee, actually.  Isaiah makes clear that the estrangement is a temporary separation and not a divorcement, when it is asked "Where is the bill of your mother's divorcement?"

 

1 Thus saith the Lord, Where is the bill of your mother’s divorcement, whom I have put away? or which of my creditors is it to whom I have sold you? Behold, for your iniquities have ye sold yourselves, and for your transgressions is your mother put away.

 

Isaiah 50:1

 

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."