Oaks talk doesn’t explain the scripture on remarriage

[CV75]

I think at this point it is clear that it is OK to tell our divorced members that they can remarry without the act or label adultery, for the same reasons God gave Moses the lesser law, which included legitimate ways to divorce and remarry.

I think at this point it is also OK that Jesus was condemning the Pharisees' abuse of the lesser, Mosaic law, which prevented them from accepting Christ (who gave it!) and the higher law He taught His disciples, including that of marriage.

Edited May 23, 2019 by CV75

[JulieM]

53 minutes ago, ALarson said:

I think you are correct that CV75 is the only one using the word "forbidden" here (from what I've seen, he introduced it into the conversation....but I'd need to go back and read the thread to make sure).  No one else has claimed that Christ stated that remarriage is "forbidden" (that I've seen) so that word should be dropped here from the discussion. IMO, (I think we can all agree that's not what Christ taught). 

Here's the post by california boy:

He is correct on this and does not make the claim that remarriage is forbidden.....just that it is adultery.  So unless CV75 can dispute this, we should just all agree this is what Christ taught and we (the church) have now evolved to a more compassionate, lenient treatment of those who divorce and remarry.  Unless there is actual adultery involved, no one is now accused of committing adultery as a condition or consequence of getting married again.

I also hope we can all agree that this is a good change  

I’m surprised anyone here would disagree with anything in the above post (maybe MisereNobles Catholic views differ?).

100% agree that what our leaders teach today is correct and compassionate!

[CV75]

12 minutes ago, JulieM said:

I’m surprised anyone here would disagree with anything in the above post (maybe MisereNobles Catholic views differ?).

100% agree that what our leaders teach today is correct and compassionate!

here you go: 2 others corroborated each other on the point that marriage is forbidden (in so many words):

Posted 22 minutes ago

 

Edited May 23, 2019 by CV75

[JulieM]

5 minutes ago, CV75 said:

here you go: 2 others corroborated each other on the point that marriage is forbidden (in so many words):

Posted 22 minutes ago

 

No one claims that Christ taught remarriage was “forbidden” (never even allowed), only that it is a sin, but you still have the choice.  He very clearly taught this.

“for·bid·den:

not allowed; banned.“

Edited May 23, 2019 by JulieM

[CV75]

5 minutes ago, JulieM said:

No one claims that Christ taught remarriage was “forbidden” (never even allowed), only that it is a sin, but you still have the choice.  He very clearly taught this.

“for·bid·den:

not allowed; banned.“

If that is the case, I'm glad they changed their original assertion to me, or allowed others to reinterpret/revise their original assertion in their behalf, which I've documented twice for you.

Of course now the challenge is, if Christ had a higher law, and replaced the lesser Mosaic law with it in His day, why in the Restoration do we have a lesser marriage law along with the higher law? From what I can tell, Christ allowed lesser gospel laws in His day as well (For example, “All men cannot receive this saying, save they to whom it is given.”), so why not in the Restoration?

[JulieM]

5 minutes ago, CV75 said:

If that is the case, I'm glad they changed their original assertion to me, or allowed others to reinterpret/revise their original assertion in their behalf, which I've documented twice for you.

I haven’t seen anyone use the word forbidden (but you).  All others have repeatedly stated that Christ taught  remarriage is a sin or adultery when one chooses to remarry after a divorce.  So maybe we can stop arguing that point and let’s agree on what Christ actually stated?  Can we do that?

[CV75]

35 minutes ago, JulieM said:

I haven’t seen anyone use the word forbidden (but you).  All others have repeatedly stated that Christ taught  remarriage is a sin or adultery when one chooses to remarry after a divorce.  So maybe we can stop arguing that point and let’s agree on what Christ actually stated?  Can we do that?

I never was arguing that anyone else but I used the word forbidden (this gripe against me has devolved beautifully!), but you overlook the quotes I provided where others clearly stated and showed corroboration that Church members "can remarry, when Jesus clearly said no," which is saying that He forbade remarriage (per your own definition, "said no" means "not allowed"), which of course now "everyone" conveniently agrees is not true.

I am happy that you are the arbiter of agreement on what Christ actually stated. I assume you are referring to the text of the New Testament. Proceed!

But if you keep chopping out of most of my posts and not responding to them, you're not doing a very good job!

Edited May 23, 2019 by CV75

[JulieM]

26 minutes ago, CV75 said:

I never was arguing that anyone else but I used the word forbidden (this gripe against me has devolved beautifully!), but you overlook the quotes I provided where others clearly stated and showed corroboration that Church members "can remarry, when Jesus clearly said no," which is saying that He forbade remarriage (per your own definition, "said no" means "not allowed"), 

But you need to give the rest of their quote that “remarriage is a sexual sin”.

So remarriage is allowed, it’s just considered adultery or a sexual sin if we are only reading Christ’s teachings.

[CV75]

52 minutes ago, JulieM said:

But you need to give the rest of their quote that “remarriage is a sexual sin”.

So remarriage is allowed, it’s just considered adultery or a sexual sin if we are only reading Christ’s teachings.

I did give the rest of their quote; I'm the one who copied and pointed it out to everybody! You are funny!

I take it you are looking at Matthew 19:3-12 and Mark 10:2-12.

Remarriage (another word Christ didn't use either, but I guess that's OK when you paraphrase, LOL) is considered adultery -- "if we are only reading Christ's teachings" -- when: a) falling outside the allowances of the law of Moses, which Christ gave Moses for Israel after they rejected the higher law, and which was in effect at the time Jesus gave these answers; b) falling outside the parameters of marriage as instituted "from the beginning" which (i) was not in force for Israel at the time Jesus gave these answers; ii) could still be observed by His followers under the spirit of the law of Moses that was in force and is the essence of the Sermon on the Mount; and (iii) which He evidently taught His disciples as the ideal for the kingdom to come.

Edited May 23, 2019 by CV75

[alter idem]

22 hours ago, JulieM said:

No one claims that Christ taught remarriage was “forbidden” (never even allowed), only that it is a sin, but you still have the choice.  He very clearly taught this.

“for·bid·den:

not allowed; banned.“

 

Here is an example of what I'm struggling with in discussing on the forum.  This argument over the the use of the word 'forbidden' and saying that no one used that term.  I'm confused, because the OP the question was asked;

Quote

"I need to understand why if Jesus of the New Testament says that remarriage is a sin, that it’s really not. "

So, why quibble about someone using the word 'forbidden' when 'sin' to a devout person would be synonymous with 'forbidden'(example--genesis where God tells Adam and Eve to not eat the fruit)? This seems like a derail to me.  IMO, these kinds of requests force a poster to waste time and effort slogging back through 10 pages to find if the word 'forbidden' was used--all because they've been challenged for using that descriptive term?  It seems to me that this is a tactic used to hamper the ability of a poster to make their argument and instead, send them on useless tasks which are burdensome.

 

If the OP said they believed that Jesus was calling remarriage a 'sin', then in the mind of a devout believer, it is a 'sin' and it is 'forbidden'--period.  I'm also not sure how saying something is 'forbidden' takes away choice.  We ALWAYS have a choice, even if something is forbidden and  Adam and Eve proved.  That's doctrine of our church--I can understand those of other faiths understanding it differently, but this is what we are taught.

 

[JulieM]

19 minutes ago, alter idem said:

Here is an example of what I'm struggling with in discussing on the forum.  This argument over the the use of the word 'forbidden' and saying that no one used that term. 

If you read through the entire discussion (I get it you might not want to ), it became important because of the additional claims CV75 was making here about what Christ stated (adding their own words and additional meaning or qualifying His words to mean what they wanted it to mean.  Others just wanted to discuss His actual words.)  

I think this thread was dying before you just revived it!  No one was changing the other person’s mind and it had been rehashed to death, imo.  I know that I was moving on, but did want to be courteous and respond to your post.  I agree it was becoming silly and futile and repetitive (the back and forth).  That’s why I stopped replying at least.

Edited May 24, 2019 by JulieM

[alter idem]

25 minutes ago, JulieM said:

If you read through the entire discussion (I get it you might not want to ), it became important because of the additional claims CV75 was making here about what Christ stated (adding their own words and additional meaning or qualifying His words to mean what they wanted it to mean.  Others just wanted to discuss His actual words.)  

I think this thread was dying before you just revived it!  No one was changing the other person’s mind and it had been rehashed to death, imo.  I know that I was moving on, but did want to be courteous and respond to your post.  I agree it was becoming silly and futile and repetitive (the back and forth).  That’s why I stopped replying at least.

I'm sorry, I'm not on here enough to tell that the thread was dying, sorry to revive it.😕

[JulieM]

10 minutes ago, alter idem said:

I'm sorry, I'm not on here enough to tell that the thread was dying, sorry to revive it.😕

Oh hey, no biggie!

Maybe you have something new to add 👍

[CV75]

1 hour ago, JulieM said:

If you read through the entire discussion (I get it you might not want to ), it became important because of the additional claims CV75 was making here about what Christ stated (adding their own words and additional meaning or qualifying His words to mean what they wanted it to mean.  Others just wanted to discuss His actual words.)  

I think this thread was dying before you just revived it!  No one was changing the other person’s mind and it had been rehashed to death, imo.  I know that I was moving on, but did want to be courteous and respond to your post.  I agree it was becoming silly and futile and repetitive (the back and forth).  That’s why I stopped replying at least.

And how do people go about “discussing Jesus’ actual words” without incorporating their own thinking and insight through words and qualification to derive some meaning from them? Comment on the content of ideas and not on being offended for a word, which was clearly a tactic to hamper and burden any meaningful discussion.

Remarriage is considered adultery when: a) falling outside the allowances of the law of Moses, which Christ gave Moses for Israel after they rejected the higher law, and which was in effect at the time Jesus gave these answers; b) falling outside the parameters of marriage as instituted "from the beginning" which (i) was not in force for Israel at the time Jesus gave these answers, but: ii) could still be observed by His followers under the spirit of the law of Moses that was in force and which spirit is the essence of the Sermon on the Mount; and (iii) which He evidently taught His disciples as the ideal for the kingdom to come.

Edited May 24, 2019 by CV75

[CV75]

1 hour ago, alter idem said:

If the OP said they believed that Jesus was calling remarriage a 'sin', then in the mind of a devout believer, it is a 'sin' and it is 'forbidden'--period.  I'm also not sure how saying something is 'forbidden' takes away choice.  We ALWAYS have a choice, even if something is forbidden and  Adam and Eve proved.  That's doctrine of our church--I can understand those of other faiths understanding it differently, but this is what we are taught.

This is a great point and is a bit different perspective, and I think an improvement for simplicity's sake, over how I was viewing the issue. Saying something is a  "sin" still counts as being "forbidden."

I was looking at the notion of remarriage after divorce not being allowed (forbidden in that sense) and leaving sin out of the equation because under the law of Moses, it was not a sin.

Edited May 24, 2019 by CV75

[ALarson]

29 minutes ago, CV75 said:

And how do people go about “discussing Jesus’ actual words” without incorporating their own thinking and insight through words and qualification to derive some meaning from them?

I think many have stated that it's fine for you to do this as long as you make it clear it's your opinion and your theory.  I found what you've written to be interesting to read.

29 minutes ago, CV75 said:

Remarriage is considered adultery when: a) falling outside the allowances of the law of Moses, which Christ gave Moses for Israel after they rejected the higher law, and which was in effect at the time Jesus gave these answers; b) falling outside the parameters of marriage as instituted "from the beginning" which (i) was not in force for Israel at the time Jesus gave these answers, but: ii) could still be observed by His followers under the spirit of the law of Moses that was in force and which spirit is the essence of the Sermon on the Mount; and (iii) which He evidently taught His disciples as the ideal for the kingdom to come.

The point many were attempting to make is that teachings have changed and evolved.  We don't teach that remarriage is adultery (after divorce).  I'm grateful for this too and support our church leaders regarding how they deal with divorce and remarriage of our members.

Edited May 24, 2019 by ALarson

[CV75]

29 minutes ago, ALarson said:

I think many have stated that it's fine for you to do this as long as you make it clear it's your opinion and your theory.  I found what you've written to be interesting to read.

The point many were attempting to make is that teachings have changed and evolved.  We don't teach that remarriage is adultery (after divorce).  I'm grateful for this too and support our church leaders regarding how they deal with divorce and remarriage of our members.

You will notice that I more often than not -- and I would say typically -- preface my remarks with such phrases as these: It seems, I think, I offered, I would say, Maybe... etc. Once the conversation has been engaged, I see no need in continuing to preface every post, and if my interlocutor is too literal to tolerate such “inconsistency” and lack of decorum, there are other problems as you can see, such as the tactic described above.

That things evolve is a nice point, but as you can see, pages were spent on employing the tactic.

Also, things may not have changed as much as some may perceive, since what the Church teaches today consistently aligns with what Jesus taught anciently, which is the point I made.

Edited May 24, 2019 by CV75

[ALarson]

58 minutes ago, CV75 said:

You will notice that I more often than not -- and I would say typically -- preface my remarks with such phrases as these: It seems, I think, I offered, I would say, Maybe... etc. Once the conversation has been engaged, I see no need in continuing to preface every post, and if my interlocutor is too literal to tolerate such “inconsistency” and lack of decorum, there are other problems as you can see, such as the tactic described above.

That things evolve is a nice point, but as you can see, pages were spent on employing the tactic.

Also, things may not have changed as much as some may perceive, since what the Church teaches today consistently aligns with what Jesus taught anciently, which is the point I made.

I think it's a good time for us to just respectfully agree to disagree here  

I hope that at least we can agree that we support our church leaders and our current teachings regarding divorce and remarriage.

[CV75]

3 minutes ago, ALarson said:

I think it's a good time for us to just respectfully agree to disagree here  

I hope that at least we can agree that we support our church leaders and our current teachings regarding divorce and remarriage.

I didn't take the discussion to be a matter of agreeing or disagreeing in the first place, just a matter of sharing.

Edited May 24, 2019 by CV75

[jpv]

On 5/22/2019 at 10:25 AM, MiserereNobis said:

Just to clarify, Catholicism believes that divorce is the Law of Moses and that Christ instituted the higher law of divorceless marriage. So, I’m not arguing for the Law of Moses. Quite the opposite, actually. 

I have a lot of Holy Envy for Catholicism/Orthodoxy for how intellectually consistent they are when it comes to divorce and abortion. 

[3DOP]

On 5/24/2019 at 9:39 PM, jpv said:

I have a lot of Holy Envy for Catholicism/Orthodoxy for how intellectually consistent they are when it comes to divorce and abortion. 

Hi jpv.

I participate on a blog where one of the others criticized the Catholic Church for not allowing divorce. He was wrong about that. Then he compared to the Orthodox who he says allows divorce. He probably means divorce and remarriage. Although that is not the first time I have heard someone say that the Orthodox are less rigorous than Catholics, I doubt that they are because like us, they hold that Holy Matrimony is a Sacrament. This makes it so that no power on earth can unbind a true, sacramental union, where God binds a man and woman together until death do them part. Here is how I tried to explain it yesterday if anyone is interested.

"One of my best Traditional Catholic friends is divorced. The Catholic Church has no difficulty in recognizing that marriages can fail and end up with a civil decree that acknowledges the necessity for a permanent separation. Oftentimes it will be discovered that one of the parties had an impediment to marriage. In that event, a decree of annulment is given showing that they were never married and that they are now free to marry since they are not attempting to break asunder what "God hath joined together."

Do the Orthodox teach that someone who is validly joined in the Sacrament of Holy Matrimony, may separate and and then be validly joined in the Sacrament of Holy Matrimony with someone else? Jesus forbade that explicitly in the Gospel. The august teaching of Christ on marriage is that it is an image of Christ and His church. I suspect you have misunderstood the Orthodox position.

Holy Matrimony is a Sacrament of divine institution. It would stagger one's faith to try to believe that God joins a couple together and then breaks the bond while they both live, and joins them together in the same way with other parties. The problem with divorce and remarriage in non-Catholic societies is that most people won't even understand that a marriage is a sacrament in the first place. In that event, the Church can make a determination that a couple never married sacramentally, that God never joined them together indissolubly. I would hope that the Orthodox churches don't presume that the Orthodox church has the authority to "break asunder what God has joined together"! " 

Catholics believe that Sacramental marriage is analogous to the relationship between Christ and His Church, according to St. Paul in Ep. 5:21-33. Only if the unity between Jesus Christ and His Bride, the Church, can be dissolved, may we imagine that a valid sacramental marriage can be dissolved. God forbid that we say that Christ might leave His Church for another spouse, or that the Church might leave Christ for another spouse. When the Catholic ponders Holy Matrimony as a mirror of the real union between Christ and His Church, it becomes easier to conceive how and why divorce and remarriage would be impermissible between baptized Christians. At that point, it is not about mercy or pastoral prudence, but about known spiritual realities. Once made, how can such a bond be broken?

Rory

Edited May 26, 2019 by 3DOP

[Stargazer]

On 5/19/2019 at 11:39 PM, 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.

The marriage standard as set by Christ during his mortal ministry appears to forbid the remarriage of persons who have been divorced.  Yet we in the LDS faith allow remarriage after divorce.  Even if the couple was sealed in the temple.

But I will tell you this, after reading Bart Ehrman's work on the New Testament, I don't entirely trust every jot and tittle that shows up in the NT. I have doubts as to how much of it, and which parts were "translated correctly."  Because of this I prefer to see it through the lens of modern revelation.

[CV75]

23 hours ago, Stargazer said:

The marriage standard as set by Christ during his mortal ministry appears to forbid the remarriage of persons who have been divorced.  Yet we in the LDS faith allow remarriage after divorce.  Even if the couple was sealed in the temple.

But I will tell you this, after reading Bart Ehrman's work on the New Testament, I don't entirely trust every jot and tittle that shows up in the NT. I have doubts as to how much of it, and which parts were "translated correctly."  Because of this I prefer to see it through the lens of modern revelation.

I would say the standard set in His day is as follows: Remarriage is considered adultery when: a) falling outside the allowances of the law of Moses, which Christ gave Moses for Israel after they rejected the higher law, and which was in effect at the time Jesus gave these answers; b) falling outside the parameters of marriage as instituted "from the beginning" which (i) was not in force for Israel at the time Jesus gave these answers, but: ii) could still be observed by His followers under the spirit of the law of Moses that was in force and which spirit is the essence of the Sermon on the Mount; and (iii) which He evidently taught His disciples as the ideal for the kingdom to come.

[Stargazer]

On 5/27/2019 at 11:22 PM, CV75 said:

I would say the standard set in His day is as follows: Remarriage is considered adultery when: a) falling outside the allowances of the law of Moses, which Christ gave Moses for Israel after they rejected the higher law, and which was in effect at the time Jesus gave these answers; b) falling outside the parameters of marriage as instituted "from the beginning" which (i) was not in force for Israel at the time Jesus gave these answers, but: ii) could still be observed by His followers under the spirit of the law of Moses that was in force and which spirit is the essence of the Sermon on the Mount; and (iii) which He evidently taught His disciples as the ideal for the kingdom to come.

Apologies for resurrecting this thread which was presumed dead (yet again), but there's another aspect that bears scrutiny.  

Matthew 5:32 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.

POINT A: Note carefully that it is the woman and whoever marries her that is committing adultery.  Not the one who put her away.  Since a man may have more than one wife, his acquiring a second (or subsequent) wife cannot be considered adultery (unless that subsequent wife was divorced).  I take the way this scripture is worded to constitute Christ's acknowledgement of the validity of plural marriage.  If this was brought up earlier, I apologize.

POINT B: If the wife is put away because of fornication, then she is actually "put away," or in other words, no longer married, so this means she is now free to remarry.  I think this was brought up earlier, but I bring it up again to ask if this is a reasonable construction.

[CV75]

2 hours ago, Stargazer said:

Apologies for resurrecting this thread which was presumed dead (yet again), but there's another aspect that bears scrutiny.  

Matthew 5:32 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.

POINT A: Note carefully that it is the woman and whoever marries her that is committing adultery.  Not the one who put her away.  Since a man may have more than one wife, his acquiring a second (or subsequent) wife cannot be considered adultery (unless that subsequent wife was divorced).  I take the way this scripture is worded to constitute Christ's acknowledgement of the validity of plural marriage.  If this was brought up earlier, I apologize.

POINT B: If the wife is put away because of fornication, then she is actually "put away," or in other words, no longer married, so this means she is now free to remarry.  I think this was brought up earlier, but I bring it up again to ask if this is a reasonable construction.

Re: POINT A, since no one can really cause another to sin, I think this is in the same kind of wording found in Moroni 9:9 (depriving someone of chastity and virtue). The sin is upon the perpetrator, not the victim (the wife and new husband). I read this as the Lord emphasizing the sacredness of marriage under the law of Moses, hinting at the need to live the teachings of the Sermon on the Mount in marriage,  and condemning the hypocrisy of the Pharisees' who put away their wives for frivolous reasons, even though He allowed it. He also taught the higher law to "they to whom it is given."

Re: POINT B, under the law of Moses fornicating spouses were generally free to remarry if they weren't stoned first. Today, divorced, even because of fornication, former spouses are free to remarry whether they face Church discipline or not.

Edited June 4, 2019 by CV75