Oaks talk doesn’t explain the scripture on remarriage

[MustardSeed]

First of all, I apologize to anyone who has been here a while and for whom this is a tired topic. 

I need to understand the scriptures in this weeks reading - specifically I need to understand why if Jesus of the New Testament says that remarriage is a sin, that it’s really not.  

I have read Oaks talk on divorce and it doesn’t clarify why we operate differently than that eternal truth.  It quotes the scripture, but doesn’t explain it. Instead, he states what we now do. 

 

Im asking for the bridge that got us here. 

[juliann]

Compassion?

[MustardSeed]

5 minutes ago, juliann said:

Compassion?

Im all about that.  I need the doctrine that addresses it. No one seems to touch it.  If there isn’t anything, let’s just say, we got nothing. 

Im fine with that answer too. 

[ksfisher]

7 minutes ago, MustardSeed said:

First of all, I apologize to anyone who has been here a while and for whom this is a tired topic. 

I need to understand the scriptures in this weeks reading - specifically I need to understand why if Jesus of the New Testament says that remarriage is a sin, that it’s really not.  

I have read Oaks talk on divorce and it doesn’t clarify why we operate differently than that eternal truth.  It quotes the scripture, but doesn’t explain it. Instead, he states what we now do. 

 

Im asking for the bridge that got us here. 

We don’t share the same culture as 1st century Jews.  While the Lord is trying to help us all understand, live, and obey a higher law, he doesn’t try and force it on a people who aren’t ready.  He also doesn’t try to force us to change things we aren’t able yet to change.  I don’t know who’s divorce laws are better, our or the Jews, but the Lord works within the culture we have to try and bring us to an eventual higher law.

[CV75]

3 minutes ago, MustardSeed said:

First of all, I apologize to anyone who has been here a while and for whom this is a tired topic. 

I need to understand the scriptures in this weeks reading - specifically I need to understand why if Jesus of the New Testament says that remarriage is a sin, that it’s really not.  

I have read Oaks talk on divorce and it doesn’t clarify why we operate differently than that eternal truth.  It quotes the scripture, but doesn’t explain it. Instead, he states what we now do. 

 

Im asking for the bridge that got us here. 

"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.

[MustardSeed]

4 minutes ago, ksfisher said:

We don’t share the same culture as 1st century Jews.  While the Lord is trying to help us all understand, live, and obey a higher law, he doesn’t try and force it on a people who aren’t ready.  He also doesn’t try to force us to change things we aren’t able yet to change.  I don’t know who’s divorce laws are better, our or the Jews, but the Lord works within the culture we have to try and bring us to an eventual higher law.

That is hopeful for us, isn’t it. 

I don’t see the bridge though. We could use that interpretation for many of Gods scripture.   

Edited May 19, 2019 by MustardSeed

[JLHPROF]

1 hour ago, MustardSeed said:

Im all about that.  I need the doctrine that addresses it. No one seems to touch it.  If there isn’t anything, let’s just say, we got nothing. 

Im fine with that answer too. 

We got nothing.

Either the marriage standard set by Christ during his mortal ministry is true or it isn't.

Ignoring it, even out of compassion, seems wrong somehow.  The gospel isn't a buffet.

[provoman]

1 hour ago, MustardSeed said:

First of all, I apologize to anyone who has been here a while and for whom this is a tired topic. 

I need to understand the scriptures in this weeks reading - specifically I need to understand why if Jesus of the New Testament says that remarriage is a sin, that it’s really not.  

I have read Oaks talk on divorce and it doesn’t clarify why we operate differently than that eternal truth.  It quotes the scripture, but doesn’t explain it. Instead, he states what we now do. 

 

Im asking for the bridge that got us here. 

Was Jesus speaking about the Law of Moses?

[MustardSeed]

9 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

We got nothing.

Either the marriage standard set by Christ during his mortal ministry is true or it isn't.

Ignoring it, even out of compassion, seems wrong somehow.  The gospel isn't a buffet.

But, apparently it is. Which is fine by me. As human beings it seems fairly impossible to be as good as we are commanded to be.

[Wade Englund]

1 hour ago, MustardSeed said:

I need to understand the scriptures in this weeks reading - specifically I need to understand why if Jesus of the New Testament says that remarriage is a sin, that it’s really not.  

This is similar to needing to understand why is it that  polygamy is a sin and not a sin.

The "doctrine" is fairly simple: when God says something is okay, then it isn't a sin; and when He says it isn't okay, then it is a sin. God will, for His own purposes,  vacillate one way or the other at different times depending upon the level of individual and/or group development, etc.. Hence, the need for modern prophets.

However, I think the crux of Mt. 19:3-9 is often overlooked by focusing on the relationship between the parents (they twain) rather than on the children (one flesh).  To me, God's primary desire is avoiding, where possible, offending one of the least of these.little ones spoken about in the previous chapter (Mt. 186)

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[CV75]

45 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

We got nothing.

Either the marriage standard set by Christ during his mortal ministry is true or it isn't.

Ignoring it, even out of compassion, seems wrong somehow.  The gospel isn't a buffet.

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.”

Edited May 19, 2019 by CV75

[LoudmouthMormon]

I'm wondering what "Put away your wife" meant back then, vs. what it means now.

A guy I know is dating a lady who makes $7k a month in alimony.  She tells her dates this up front, so they know she's not looking to get married any time soon.

Edited May 19, 2019 by LoudmouthMormon

[Scott Lloyd]

2 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.

Adultery of any sort (and I use that term broadly to include fornication) is inexcusable. However, it is forgivable on condition of repentance. 

[JLHPROF]

1 hour ago, provoman said:

Was Jesus speaking about the Law of Moses?

Yes. Which would make divorce the lesser law.

If Brigham Young's teachings on divorce turn out to be true we'll all be in for a shock.  (Un/Fortunately current practice is to ignore anything Brigham said).

[bluebell]

1 minute ago, JLHPROF said:

Yes. Which would make divorce the lesser law.

If Brigham Young's teachings on divorce turn out to be true we'll all be in for a shock.  (Un/Fortunately current practice is to ignore anything Brigham said).

Could you provide the quote?  I thought that BY taught that divorce was allowed.

[JLHPROF]

1 minute ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Adultery of any sort (and I use that term broadly to include fornication) is inexcusable. However, it is forgivable on condition of repentance. 

True.  But as D&C 132 points out, it's much more serious and therefore requires more repentance for those under a vow (covenant) than those in the world.

[strappinglad]

I may have posted about this before , but I once asked this question directly to a GA. His take was that we currently cannot live that higher law. Judging from the response of Christ's apostle, neither could the people of their time. 

[JLHPROF]

11 minutes ago, bluebell said:

Could you provide the quote?  I thought that BY taught that divorce was allowed.

JofD 17:115-120 (not official doctrine anymore but as official then as the Ensign is today)

"I say to my sisters in the kingdom, who are sealed to men, and who say, “We do not want this man in eternity if he is going to conduct himself there as he does here”—there is not the least danger in the world of your ever seeing him in eternity or of his seeing you there if he proves himself unworthy here. But if he honors his Priesthood, and you are to blame and come short of doing your duty, and prove yourselfunworthy of celestial glory, it will be left to him to do what he pleases with you. You will be very glad to get to him if you find the fault was in yourself and not in him. But if you are not at fault, be not troubled about being joined to him there, for no man will have the privilege of gathering his wives and children around him there unless he proves himself worthy of them.

I have said a number of times, and I will say again, to you ladies who want to get a bill of divorce from your husbands, because they do not treat you right, or because you do not exactly like their ways, there is a principle upon which a woman can leave a man, but if the man honors his Priesthood, it will be pretty hard work for you to get away from him. If he is just and right, serves God and is full of justice, love, mercy and truth, he will have the power that is sealed upon him, and will do what he pleases with you. When you want to get a bill of divorce, you had better wait and find out whether the Lord is willing to give you one or not, and not come to me. I tell the brethren and Sisters, when they come to me and want a bill of divorce, that I am ready to seal people and administer in the ordinances, and they are welcome to my services, but when they undertake to break the commandments and tear to pieces the doings of the Lord, I make them give me something. I tell a man he has to give me ten dollars if he wants a divorce. For what? My services? No, for his foolishness. If you want a bill of divorce give me ten dollars, so that I can put it down in the book that such a man and such a woman have dissolved partnership. Do you think you have done so when you have obtained a bill of divorce? No, nor ever can if you are faithful to the covenants you have made. It takes a higher power than a bill of divorce to take a woman from a man who is a good man and honors his Priesthood—it must be a man who possesses a higher power in the Priesthood, or else the woman is bound to her husband, and will be forever and ever. You might as well ask me for a piece of blank paper for a divorce, as to have a little writing on it, saying—“We mutually agree to dissolve partnership and keep ourselves apart from each other,” &c. It is all nonsense and folly; there is no such thing in the ordinances of the house of God; you cannot find any such law. It is true Jesus told the people that a man could put away his wife for fornication, but for nothing short of this."

He also told a man looking for divorce there was no principle upon which a man could leave a wife in polygamy.

[Wade Englund]

4 minutes ago, LoudmouthMormon said:

I'm wondering what "Put away your wife" meant back then, vs. what it means now.

Your question caused me to recall an earlier New Testament event, which adds considerable meaning to the words of Christ discussed in this thread, and strikes very close to his home..  The event is recorded in Mt. 1:18-20 (bold mine):

Quote

18 ¶ Now the birth of Jesus Christ was on this wise: When as his mother Mary was espoused to Joseph, before they came together, she was found with child of the Holy Ghost.

19 Then Joseph her husband, being a just man, and not willing to make her a publick example, was minded to put her away privily.

20 But while he thought on these things, behold, the angel of the Lord appeared unto him in a dream, saying, Joseph, thou son ofDavid, fear not to take unto thee Mary thy wife: for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Ghost.

Isn't it interesting that Christ's own conception was cause for Joseph to consider "putting away" (i.e. divorce) his espoused wife, Mary? 

Even more interesting, was that the Scribes and Pharisees implied that Jesus was born of fornication,"(Jn 814), and that fornication was the one stated grounds for legitimately "putting away" or "giving a writ of divorce?"

So, Christ is able to intimately look at this question from the point of view of the children rather than the parents.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Wade Englund]

2 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

JofD 17:115-120 (not official doctrine anymore but as official then as the Ensign is today)

"I say to my sisters in the kingdom, who are sealed to men, and who say, “We do not want this man in eternity if he is going to conduct himself there as he does here”—there is not the least danger in the world of your ever seeing him in eternity or of his seeing you there if he proves himself unworthy here. But if he honors his Priesthood, and you are to blame and come short of doing your duty, and prove yourselfunworthy of celestial glory, it will be left to him to do what he pleases with you. You will be very glad to get to him if you find the fault was in yourself and not in him. But if you are not at fault, be not troubled about being joined to him there, for no man will have the privilege of gathering his wives and children around him there unless he proves himself worthy of them.

I have said a number of times, and I will say again, to you ladies who want to get a bill of divorce from your husbands, because they do not treat you right, or because you do not exactly like their ways, there is a principle upon which a woman can leave a man, but if the man honors his Priesthood, it will be pretty hard work for you to get away from him. If he is just and right, serves God and is full of justice, love, mercy and truth, he will have the power that is sealed upon him, and will do what he pleases with you. When you want to get a bill of divorce, you had better wait and find out whether the Lord is willing to give you one or not, and not come to me. I tell the brethren and Sisters, when they come to me and want a bill of divorce, that I am ready to seal people and administer in the ordinances, and they are welcome to my services, but when they undertake to break the commandments and tear to pieces the doings of the Lord, I make them give me something. I tell a man he has to give me ten dollars if he wants a divorce. For what? My services? No, for his foolishness. If you want a bill of divorce give me ten dollars, so that I can put it down in the book that such a man and such a woman have dissolved partnership. Do you think you have done so when you have obtained a bill of divorce? No, nor ever can if you are faithful to the covenants you have made. It takes a higher power than a bill of divorce to take a woman from a man who is a good man and honors his Priesthood—it must be a man who possesses a higher power in the Priesthood, or else the woman is bound to her husband, and will be forever and ever. You might as well ask me for a piece of blank paper for a divorce, as to have a little writing on it, saying—“We mutually agree to dissolve partnership and keep ourselves apart from each other,” &c. It is all nonsense and folly; there is no such thing in the ordinances of the house of God; you cannot find any such law. It is true Jesus told the people that a man could put away his wife for fornication, but for nothing short of this."

He also told a man looking for divorce there was no principle upon which a man could leave a wife in polygamy.

If I recall correctly, In a Conference talk, BY expressed considerable frustration because of all the gossip and harsh words exchanged between polygamous wives,  and offered the alternative of letting the women out of the marriages or stop with the gossiping, etc.  I wish I had a citation, but I don't.

Than ks, -Wade Enlgund-

[Glenn101]

3 hours ago, MustardSeed said:

First of all, I apologize to anyone who has been here a while and for whom this is a tired topic. 

I need to understand the scriptures in this weeks reading - specifically I need to understand why if Jesus of the New Testament says that remarriage is a sin, that it’s really not.  

I have read Oaks talk on divorce and it doesn’t clarify why we operate differently than that eternal truth.  It quotes the scripture, but doesn’t explain it. Instead, he states what we now do. 

 

Im asking for the bridge that got us here. 

A member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints must take those scriptures in light of latter-day revelation on the eternal nature of the marriage sealing ordinance. We do not have all of the background information on the marriage ordinances as practised by the Children of Israel and we are not bound by those procedures, etc. We are bound by what we have received in these latter-days.

Glenn

[jpv]

The cultural/historical background has a lot to do with it:

From my LDS Wayment Translation:

"The Pharisees had assumed that Jesus would contradict popular interpretations about permissible divorce. The region near the Jordan River was perhaps the same area where John the Baptist taught, and the Pharisees may have been attempting to entrap Jesus into condemning Antipas’s marriages."

 

From my Harper Collins NRSV:

‘5.32 Except on the ground of unchastity (cf. 1 Cor 7.10–11). This “exception clause” (not in Mk 10.11) is an interpretation of an ambiguous expression in Deut 24.1, “something objectionable” (Hebrew ‘erwat dabar, lit. “nakedness of a thing” cf. “anything indecent,” decent,” Deut 23.14).

 

Some first-century Israelite teachers interpreted it to mean “a disgrace and/or some other thing,” thus permitting a man to divorce his wife for almost any reason, even burning the dinner (Rabbi Hillel) or not being as beautiful as another woman (Rabbi Akiba); cf. Mishnah Gitin 9.10; similarly Josephus, Antiquities 3.276–77; Life 426; Philo, On the Special Laws 3.30–31.

 

A more restrictive interpretation was that it referred specifically to her “unchastity,” i.e., adultery (Rabbi Shammai; cf. Mishnah Gitin 9.10). The Greek term porneia in Matthew means any form of “sexual immorality,” not just adultery; yet, since the Matthean statement is polemical (“But I say to you”), the author’s single exception (unchastity) may have meant adultery.

 

In Mk 10.11 there are no exceptions, therefore no grounds for divorce; this was probably the historical Jesus’ view (cf. 1 Cor 7.10; Justin, First Apology 15.3).

 

Paul also softened Jesus’ view, allowing non-believers to “separate” cf. 1 Cor 7.10–16. The Matthean author apparently preferred the position of Shammai.’

 

Could also mean that divorcing with the intent marrying someone else is adultery.

[JLHPROF]

25 minutes ago, Glenn101 said:

A member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints must take those scriptures in light of latter-day revelation on the eternal nature of the marriage sealing ordinance. We do not have all of the background information on the marriage ordinances as practised by the Children of Israel and we are not bound by those procedures, etc. We are bound by what we have received in these latter-days.

Glenn

I must have missed the modern day revelations that contradict Christ and allow divorce for whatever reason we choose.

[cinepro]

2 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Adultery of any sort (and I use that term broadly to include fornication) is inexcusable. However, it is forgivable on condition of repentance. 

Apparently only the first time.  Unless this is something else we've all agreed to pretend isn't in the scriptures...

Quote

25 But he that has committed adultery and repents with all his heart, and forsaketh it, and doeth it no more, thou shalt forgive;

26 But if he doeth it again, he shall not be forgiven, but shall be cast out.

 

 

Edited May 20, 2019 by cinepro

[mfbukowski]

I see the no divorce reprimand as applying to the Higher Law, meaning temple sealings.

And then there is the question of what makes a marriage "valid" what good is the idea of "annulment ", etc.

I don't allege that I have any answers though.

If you get married with mental reservations for wrong reasons, does that count for anything?

What about "having to get married"?

Should you be stuck forever for being young and stupid?