Jesus's statements on marriage

[JLHPROF]

44 minutes ago, janderich said:

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

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

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

Do you believe anyone gets into the Celestial Kingdom despising anyone?

- You may inquire, in case a wife becomes disaffected with her husband, her affections lost, she becomes alienated from him and wishes to be the wife of another, can she not leave him? I know of no law in heaven or on earth by which she can be made free while her husband remains faithful and magnifies his priesthood before God and he is not disposed to put her away, she having done nothing worthy of being put away. If that disaffected wife could behold the transcendent beauty of person, the godlike qualities of the resurrected husband she now despises, her love for him would be unbounded and unutterable. Instead of despising him she would feel like worshipping him, he is so holy, so pure, so perfect and so filled with God in his resurrected body. There will be no disaffection of this kind in the resurrection of the just. The faithful elders have then provided themselves worthy of their wives, and are prepared to be crowned gods, to be filled with all the attributes of the gods that dwell in eternity. Could disaffected ones see visions, even of the future glorified state of their husbands, love for them would immediately spring up within you and no circumstance could prevail upon you to forsake them."

As for my point on lesser law you seemed to indicate that the Church is ok with divorce because we aren't prepared to live without it so we have a lesser law.  Marriage and divorce are part of the same law and covenant.  If we aren't able to take an eternal celestial view of divorce then we have no right to be entering into eternal celestial marriage.  

[Meerkat]

13 hours ago, Coop said:

Polygamous marriages allows for one to balance one's personal needs with one's responsibilities in a way that monogamy doesn't.

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

Who's personal needs are satisfied in a polygamous relationship?  The woman is restricted to one partner.  If she is abused, how does polygamy deal with her personal needs (of safety, protection, etc.)?  Whatever reasons may have existed for polygamy, I see no evidentiary link to prostitution, pornography, fornication or adultery.  Christ told us to avoid lust.  Paul told us to put off the natural man.  It takes work to be a Christian, no more so than that to be a monogamist.  When we fail, there is repentance.  That is how we deal with adultery.  Polygamy is not a solution for that.  It may be a solution for other issues, when God commands it, but not adultery, in my opinion.  

Edited November 14, 2017 by Meerkat

[california boy]

Sure.  Why not?  I am not asking her to stay in the marriage am I.  I am pointing out that Christ taught that divorce and remarrying was adultery.  If she never marries, then she is not committing adultery.  So there is. no sin.  

Why would you not support her being celibate for the rest of her life?  The sin is not in being divorced.  The sin is remarrying and having sex.  That is the adultery Christ condemned.  Why would we ignore this clear commandment from Christ?

Edited November 14, 2017 by california boy

[california boy]

3 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

Do you believe anyone gets into the Celestial Kingdom despising anyone?

- You may inquire, in case a wife becomes disaffected with her husband, her affections lost, she becomes alienated from him and wishes to be the wife of another, can she not leave him? I know of no law in heaven or on earth by which she can be made free while her husband remains faithful and magnifies his priesthood before God and he is not disposed to put her away, she having done nothing worthy of being put away. If that disaffected wife could behold the transcendent beauty of person, the godlike qualities of the resurrected husband she now despises, her love for him would be unbounded and unutterable. Instead of despising him she would feel like worshipping him, he is so holy, so pure, so perfect and so filled with God in his resurrected body. There will be no disaffection of this kind in the resurrection of the just. The faithful elders have then provided themselves worthy of their wives, and are prepared to be crowned gods, to be filled with all the attributes of the gods that dwell in eternity. Could disaffected ones see visions, even of the future glorified state of their husbands, love for them would immediately spring up within you and no circumstance could prevail upon you to forsake them."

As for my point on lesser law you seemed to indicate that the Church is ok with divorce because we aren't prepared to live without it so we have a lesser law.  Marriage and divorce are part of the same law and covenant.  If we aren't able to take an eternal celestial view of divorce then we have no right to be entering into eternal celestial marriage.  

Divorce is not the lesser law.  It is the remarriage and subsequent sexual relations outside of that first marriage that is breaking the law of chastity if you truly believe in the words of Christ.  

[california boy]

4 hours ago, janderich said:

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

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

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

God doesn't force anyone to live the commandments.  But that doesn't mean there aren't consequences for breaking the commandments and then committing adultery as Christ taught.  Even for Brigham Young.  Anyone that does not remain celibate after divorce should be excommunicated if they are not willing to repent from having an adulterous relationship with their second husband.  Just because divorce is legal doesn't mean it is legal in the eyes of God.

[Gray]

12 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

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

The reason that remarriage after divorce is prohibited (the divorce isn't recognized, meaning you're still married to your first spouse) means that polygamy is also adultery, using Jesus' reasoning.

[janderich]

7 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

Do you believe anyone gets into the Celestial Kingdom despising anyone?

- You may inquire, in case a wife becomes disaffected with her husband, her affections lost, she becomes alienated from him and wishes to be the wife of another, can she not leave him? I know of no law in heaven or on earth by which she can be made free while her husband remains faithful and magnifies his priesthood before God and he is not disposed to put her away, she having done nothing worthy of being put away. If that disaffected wife could behold the transcendent beauty of person, the godlike qualities of the resurrected husband she now despises, her love for him would be unbounded and unutterable. Instead of despising him she would feel like worshipping him, he is so holy, so pure, so perfect and so filled with God in his resurrected body. There will be no disaffection of this kind in the resurrection of the just. The faithful elders have then provided themselves worthy of their wives, and are prepared to be crowned gods, to be filled with all the attributes of the gods that dwell in eternity. Could disaffected ones see visions, even of the future glorified state of their husbands, love for them would immediately spring up within you and no circumstance could prevail upon you to forsake them."

Please note that I said "they" despise one another, and that "they" need to love one another. Is there really a case where a woman wants a divorce, the man is completely faithful to her and the priesthood he holds, and he will not give her the freedom to leave? What of this eternal principle, "[The rights of the priesthood] may be conferred upon us, it is true; but when we undertake to cover our sins, or to gratify our pride, our vain ambition, or to exercise control or dominion or compulsion upon the souls of the children of men, in any degree of unrighteousness, behold, the heavens withdraw themselves; the Spirit of the Lord is grieved; and when it is withdrawn, Amen to the priesthood or the authority of that man. (D&C 121:37). Maybe Brigham would argue that it is still righteous for a man not to allow a woman to divorce him, but if it were me I would give her wings.  

7 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

As for my point on lesser law you seemed to indicate that the Church is ok with divorce because we aren't prepared to live without it so we have a lesser law.  Marriage and divorce are part of the same law and covenant.  If we aren't able to take an eternal celestial view of divorce then we have no right to be entering into eternal celestial marriage.  

No, my point was that some individuals within the church cannot live the law of celestial marriage. Those individuals may ultimately end up adhering to a lesser law. I am not saying that the church accepts divorce and remarriage as a viable alternative to fidelity within an eternal marriage. However, I do believe that some who have been divorced and remarried will yet find a level of happiness in this life and the next.

[janderich]

4 hours ago, california boy said:

Divorce is not the lesser law.  It is the remarriage and subsequent sexual relations outside of that first marriage that is breaking the law of chastity if you truly believe in the words of Christ.  

Divorce within a marriage blessed by God is a lesser law. A husband without a wife will not, and cannot, enter into the highest order of the priesthood.

[Pete Ahlstrom]

A lot of Jesus' teachings aren't followed today. The church will fight tooth and nail if sued instead of doing what the sermon on the mount says to do when sued. Matt 5:40. Even so, it should defend itself and is justified in doing so. Also, we as a society don't really love our enemies. Matt 5:44. We want to have droan strikes and war and kill the enemy. Here again the situation may justify not following Jesus.

[The Nehor]

12 hours ago, Jane_Doe said:

Would you like to tell that to an abused person?

No, but I also do not like teaching tithing to the near-destitute, Teaching the law of chastity to those attracted to the same gender, or teaching faith to a skeptic that demands objective proof.

The church does not enforce this statement by Jesus but members seeking divorces would be unwise to ignore it.

[The Nehor]

3 hours ago, janderich said:

Divorce within a marriage blessed by God is a lesser law. A husband without a wife will not, and cannot, enter into the highest order of the priesthood.

Thanks for the reminder.  

[JLHPROF]

5 hours ago, janderich said:

Divorce within a marriage blessed by God is a lesser law. A husband without a wife will not, and cannot, enter into the highest order of the priesthood.

The higher law of marriage doesn't allow for divorce.
Therefore, if our marriages allow for divorce we aren't truly participating in eternal marriage.

[california boy]

6 hours ago, janderich said:

Divorce within a marriage blessed by God is a lesser law. A husband without a wife will not, and cannot, enter into the highest order of the priesthood.

Where are you getting this lesser law stuff from?  Did Christ say if you "need" to get a divorce, then that is ok and you aren't committing adultery after all?  

And are you really stating that every single woman will not be able to enter the Celestial Kingdom?  I thought that the church allows the possibility that marriage can happen to those that die single.

[california boy]

4 hours ago, Pete Ahlstrom said:

A lot of Jesus' teachings aren't followed today. The church will fight tooth and nail if sued instead of doing what the sermon on the mount says to do when sued. Matt 5:40. Even so, it should defend itself and is justified in doing so. Also, we as a society don't really love our enemies. Matt 5:44. We want to have droan strikes and war and kill the enemy. Here again the situation may justify not following Jesus.

You kind of wonder why Christ bothered to say anything.  We just justify what we want to do anyway even when it completely contridicts what He taught.  I guess it is safe to say that we just know better than Christ and He really didn't mean what He said.

[california boy]

3 hours ago, The Nehor said:

Thanks for the reminder.  

You can hang out with me and my boyfriend.  We have a fabulous place planned where all are welcome.

[Pete Ahlstrom]

45 minutes ago, california boy said:

You kind of wonder why Christ bothered to say anything.  We just justify what we want to do anyway even when it completely contridicts what He taught.  I guess it is safe to say that we just know better than Christ and He really didn't mean what He said.

Maybe we would lock Jesus up if he appeared today like in the grand inquistor chapter of the "Brothers Karamazov?"

Edited November 14, 2017 by Pete Ahlstrom

[The Nehor]

46 minutes ago, california boy said:

You can hang out with me and my boyfriend.  We have a fabulous place planned where all are welcome.

Sounds fun  

[JAHS]

Jesus said:

"What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder." (Mark 10: 9)

"And they said, Moses suffered to write a bill of divorcement, and to put her away. And Jesus answered and said unto them, For the hardness of your heart he wrote you this precept."(Mark 10: 4-5)

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":

Unfortunately in our day some members do not abide by the law of the gospel in its fullness, and so, as in the day of Moses, God has allowed divorce, when deemed necessary, although it was never intended to be.

[JLHPROF]

16 minutes ago, JAHS said:

Jesus said:

"What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder." (Mark 10: 9)

"And they said, Moses suffered to write a bill of divorcement, and to put her away. And Jesus answered and said unto them, For the hardness of your heart he wrote you this precept."(Mark 10: 4-5)

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":

Unfortunately in our day some members do not abide by the law of the gospel in its fullness, and so, as in the day of Moses, God has allowed divorce, when deemed necessary, although it was never intended to be.

Moses suffered to write a bill of divorcement for the hardness of their hearts (ie, because they asked for it).  Yet Jesus said what God has joined let man not put asunder.

Which made me think of Brigham's statement I quoted earlier - 
"Presdent Young spoke 47 Minuts. In speaking of giving divorces He said when he sealed a woman to a man he asked nothing for it but if they asked for a divorce I charge him $10 for his folly for it is no better than a peace of white Paper. For when I seal a woman to a man it takes a higher power than I am to take her away."

Suggestion - Yes, Moses granted a bill of divorcement, but perhaps Christ is stating as Brigham did that it takes a higher power to break that sealing and the bill of divorcement really was not better than a piece of white paper (or papyrus  ).

Doctrinally speaking, without a sealing cancellation (a loosing to counter the sealing) it seems that both Christ and Brigham (and possibly Moses) are saying that divorce papers don't actually cancel the marriage, but are just given for the hardness of their hearts.  Perhaps we have a large number of "divorced" members who will be surprised to find themselves still married in the eternities but under condemnation for not living up to that sealing.  

 

[pogi]

14 hours ago, california boy said:

Divorce is not the lesser law.  It is the remarriage and subsequent sexual relations outside of that first marriage that is breaking the law of chastity if you truly believe in the words of Christ.  

14 hours ago, california boy said:

Why would you not support her being celibate for the rest of her life?  The sin is not in being divorced.  The sin is remarrying and having sex.  That is the adultery Christ condemned.  Why would we ignore this clear commandment from Christ?

Is the only chaste life for a divorcee a celibate life then?  

On a side note, didn't you say that you are divorced...?

[california boy]

8 hours ago, pogi said:

Is the only chaste life for a divorcee a celibate life then?  

On a side note, didn't you say that you are divorced...?

Yes if you want to follow the teachings of Christ.  Of course that becomes way more difficult when being celibate starts affecting more than just a small group of gay members.  The church would have a major revolt if they started telling straight members to live a celibate life if they get divorced.   I mean just look at this thread.  We are only on page 2.  If this was a thread on how gay members should live a celibate life, we would be on page 25 by now.  No one wants to touch this subject with a 10 foot pole.  All the sudden the thought of being celibate for the rest of their lives when they could actually marry again terrifies them.  And the irony is, Christ is so clear about divorce.  Not so much about the path gays should follow.

Yes.  But hey, I am gay, so the Celestial Kingdom is not in my future anyway is it.

[california boy]

10 hours ago, Pete Ahlstrom said:

Maybe we would lock Jesus up if he appeared today like in the grand inquistor chapter of the "Brothers Karamazov?"

I doubt very much that if Christ appeared today, the church and christianity in general would have a lot of difficulty with some of his teachings.  

[california boy]

9 hours ago, JAHS said:

Jesus said:

"What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder." (Mark 10: 9)

"And they said, Moses suffered to write a bill of divorcement, and to put her away. And Jesus answered and said unto them, For the hardness of your heart he wrote you this precept."(Mark 10: 4-5)

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":

Unfortunately in our day some members do not abide by the law of the gospel in its fullness, and so, as in the day of Moses, God has allowed divorce, when deemed necessary, although it was never intended to be.

So there was a revelation correcting the teachings of Christ on divorce as part of the restoration?  I think I missed that one.

[janderich]

16 hours ago, california boy said:

Where are you getting this lesser law stuff from?  Did Christ say if you "need" to get a divorce, then that is ok and you aren't committing adultery after all?  

And are you really stating that every single woman will not be able to enter the Celestial Kingdom?  I thought that the church allows the possibility that marriage can happen to those that die single.

14 hours ago, JAHS said:

Jesus said:

"What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder." (Mark 10: 9)

"And they said, Moses suffered to write a bill of divorcement, and to put her away. And Jesus answered and said unto them, For the hardness of your heart he wrote you this precept."(Mark 10: 4-5)

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":

Unfortunately in our day some members do not abide by the law of the gospel in its fullness, and so, as in the day of Moses, God has allowed divorce, when deemed necessary, although it was never intended to be.

This statement from Jesus about Moses allowing people to write a bill of divorcement is where I get this lesser law from. Sure, we don't have to term it "lesser law", but in my mind that is exactly what it is. 

 

[Gray]

1 hour ago, janderich said:

This statement from Jesus about Moses allowing people to write a bill of divorcement is where I get this lesser law from. Sure, we don't have to term it "lesser law", but in my mind that is exactly what it is. 

 

It's an interesting interpretation by Jesus, to be sure. A lot of early Christians follow the same pattern - rejecting a literal interpretation of the OT in favor of something a bit circuitous. They seem to "liken scriptures to themselves" and use it only as a jumping off point to express the teachings they felt were higher.

Edited November 15, 2017 by Gray