Oaks talk doesn’t explain the scripture on remarriage

[Glenn101]

1 hour ago, JLHPROF said:

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

I missed the one that allows divorce for whatever reason we choose, but it does seem that we do have people getting divorces because of the hardness of their hearts nowadays. As far as the words of Christ are concerned, we have such a small portion of his words and sometimes those words can seem contradictory themselves. Compare Mark 9:40 "For he that is not against us is on our part." (seemingly pretty clear) with Matthew 12:30 "He that is not with me is against me; and he that gathereth not with me scattereth abroad" (which seems to contradict what he said in Mark 9:40)

In Matthew 16:19 the Savior told Peter : "And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven." Now Christ did not say that whatever Peter loosed on earth would be loosed in heaven except for marriage covenants.

Whatever scriptures we have in the Bible have come down to us incompletely and must needs be supplemented and clarified through modern revelation, else we are wasting our time.

Glenn

[Glenn101]

1 hour ago, cinepro said:

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

 

 

Even that quote leaves some ambiguity as it does not say that such an one would never be allowed to be rebaptized. It allows for a person to commit adultery, repent, and not be excommunicated. But if such an one repeats the offence he or she will be excommunicated. Still leaves open the possibility of being rebaptized. But there is a sin unto death noted in Doctrine and Covenants 64:7 and a couple of places in the New Testament so, while God will forgive a lot of sins based upon true repentance, it is really best not to push our luck.

Glenn

[jpv]

2 hours ago, cinepro said:

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

 

 

Might refer to mandatory excommunication as part of the repentance process for repeat offenders. 

[jpv]

2 hours ago, cinepro said:

 

 

Edited May 20, 2019 by jpv
Dupe

[Scott Lloyd]

5 hours ago, cinepro said:

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

 

 

This Doctrine and Covenants section appears to amount to early instruction given by revelation to direct the administration of the Church ( see the heading). A variety of subjects are discussed: missionary work, providing for the needy, administration to the sick, teaching, temporal support for Church leaders, etc. It is like an early policies and procedures manual, as it were.

In this context, it is clear that the phrase “cast out” has reference to excommunication from the Church (compare the several occurrences of that phrase in this D&C section).

What the verse you have cited here appears to be saying is that if a Church member repents of adultery, he may remain in the Church, but if he repeats the offense (thus signaling that his prior repentance wasn’t genuine, as he did not forsake the sin), then that is the time he should be excommunicated (cast out). 

The verse does not say that a person thus excommunicated can never again repent or that he can never be forgiven by the Lord and even readmitted to the Church if his repentance is sincere. In fact, in 3 Nephi 18:32, Christ commanded Church leaders among the Nephites  to “continue to minister” to those who have been thus cast out in case they, at some point in the future, will sincerely repent and return. 

[california boy]

12 hours ago, juliann said:

Compassion?

 

 

12 hours 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.

It is hilarious to me that there is room for compassion, and that times are different when the Bible was written, yet no room for compassion if you are gay, and the scriptures are perfectly clear on homosexual relationships.

Adultery if you are straight is not a problem because the idea of being celibate the rest of your life is so hard to ask someone to do.  Straight couples are so lucky that the church is run by straight men, some of who got a divorce.  

Just read through the answers to this question and apply gay marriage as the topic.  All the sudden there are so many ways of getting around the immorality that Christ clearly states when someone remarries instead of being celibate the rest of their lives.  And most of these work arounds are offered by the very people who say there is no work around if you are gay.

It is this kind of issues that make me so certain Church leaders are expressing their opinion on gay marriage and don't even claim to have a revelation from God.  Why should anyone take Church doctrine on gay marriage seriously?  Celibacy if you are divorced?  Way too hard to live.  Celibacy if you are gay?  

I am not going to derail this thread.  I am only pointing out the hypocrisy the Church has.  Just something to think about.

 

 

[MustardSeed]

Thank you all for your input.

im fine with modern prophets clarifying scripture.  I’m even fine with modern prophets changing doctrine. 

There doesn’t seem to be anything that I’m looking for- if no one here knows of it then I’m confident it doesn’t exist. 

Onward! 

[CV75]

13 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. 

Certainly. Matthew 5:28 uses the term even more broadly than that. What kinds of adultery is Jesus talking about in Matthew 5:32 and Mark 10:11-12? All are forgivable on condition of repentance.

The OP was asking for the doctrinal basis for Jesus permitting in His Restored Church divorced persons to marry again without the stain of immorality specified in the higher law, despite these sayings, and I offered two explanations (above).

[CV75]

14 hours ago, LoudmouthMormon said:

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.

Or may be she is!

[CV75]

3 hours ago, california boy said:

It is hilarious to me that there is room for compassion, and that times are different when the Bible was written, yet no room for compassion if you are gay, and the scriptures are perfectly clear on homosexual relationships.

Adultery if you are straight is not a problem because the idea of being celibate the rest of your life is so hard to ask someone to do.  Straight couples are so lucky that the church is run by straight men, some of who got a divorce.  

Just read through the answers to this question and apply gay marriage as the topic.  All the sudden there are so many ways of getting around the immorality that Christ clearly states when someone remarries instead of being celibate the rest of their lives.  And most of these work arounds are offered by the very people who say there is no work around if you are gay.

It is this kind of issues that make me so certain Church leaders are expressing their opinion on gay marriage and don't even claim to have a revelation from God.  Why should anyone take Church doctrine on gay marriage seriously?  Celibacy if you are divorced?  Way too hard to live.  Celibacy if you are gay?  

I am not going to derail this thread.  I am only pointing out the hypocrisy the Church has.  Just something to think about.

But you did derail, causing me to think about whose hypocrisy is really on display here.

The Church's position is that sexual sin is sexual sin, no matter the orientation (no hypocrisy there). She expects all to be celibate until they are married (no hypocrisy there). Your issue is that ssm is not recognized by the Church as a legitimate marriage as she defines it.

[The Nehor]

The Savior was dealing with a culture that treated frivolous divorce as casually or more casually then we do and the economic and social repercussions for women were much worse. Telling men to only divorce their wife if she is cheating on you was to cut off attempts to divorce her for her bad cooking or not giving you a son.

Culturally in our time where we have a different concept of spousal abuse and women have more power I can see severing a relationship to avoid abuse towards yourself or your children. Jesus talks about “from the beginning” which refers to a Terrestrial world. If we were all living a Terrestrial Law that would apply to us too. We are not and even someone living a celestial law may have an abusive spouse living a son/daughter of perdition law.

[juliann]

14 hours ago, Wade Englund said:

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-

Yes, cause women gossip. BY's harsh words were factual.

BY also gave out more divorces than almost all states to the point Utah became the Las Vegas divorce destination of the nation. A little odd for a man who didn't think divorce was merited. 

[california boy]

42 minutes ago, CV75 said:

But you did derail, causing me to think about whose hypocrisy is really on display here.

The Church's position is that sexual sin is sexual sin, no matter the orientation (no hypocrisy there). She expects all to be celibate until they are married (no hypocrisy there). Your issue is that ssm is not recognized by the Church as a legitimate marriage as she defines it.

So now back to the OP of this thread.  Marrying someone after divorce IS a sexual sin according to the words of Christ.  He calls it adultery when they remarry,  Last time I checked, adultery was a sexual sin. Explain that away.

And I didn't derail the thread.  The two subjects can be addrssed together.  I am cautioning against this becoming a thread about the right or wrong of gay marriage.  My comment is about the right or wrong of divorce, which IS what this thread is about.

Edited May 20, 2019 by california boy

[The Nehor]

1 minute ago, california boy said:

So now back to the OP of this thread.  Marrying someone after divorce IS a sexual sin according to the words of Christ.  He calls it adultery when they remarry,  Last time I checked, adultery was a sexual sin. Explain that away.

A lot of people are going to hell.

[Scott Lloyd]

54 minutes ago, CV75 said:

Certainly. Matthew 5:28 uses the term even more broadly than that. What kinds of adultery is Jesus talking about in Matthew 5:32 and Mark 10:11-12? All are forgivable on condition of repentance.

The OP was asking for the doctrinal basis for Jesus permitting in His Restored Church divorced persons to marry again without the stain of immorality specified in the higher law, despite these sayings, and I offered two explanations (above).

Be that as it may, I was responding specifically to cinepro’s point about committing adultery again after having repented of it. 

[california boy]

54 minutes ago, CV75 said:

Certainly. Matthew 5:28 uses the term even more broadly than that. What kinds of adultery is Jesus talking about in Matthew 5:32 and Mark 10:11-12? All are forgivable on condition of repentance.

The OP was asking for the doctrinal basis for Jesus permitting in His Restored Church divorced persons to marry again without the stain of immorality specified in the higher law, despite these sayings, and I offered two explanations (above).

If Christ calls remarrying after a divorce adultery, then the only way to repent of that is to cease to be married.  Christ is not talking about adultery outside of marriage.  He is telling us that the act of marrying after divorce is living in adultery.

[california boy]

14 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

The Savior was dealing with a culture that treated frivolous divorce as casually or more casually then we do and the economic and social repercussions for women were much worse. Telling men to only divorce their wife if she is cheating on you was to cut off attempts to divorce her for her bad cooking or not giving you a son.

Culturally in our time where we have a different concept of spousal abuse and women have more power I can see severing a relationship to avoid abuse towards yourself or your children. Jesus talks about “from the beginning” which refers to a Terrestrial world. If we were all living a Terrestrial Law that would apply to us too. We are not and even someone living a celestial law may have an abusive spouse living a son/daughter of perdition law.

First time I have ever heard someone say that divorce is not frivolous in todays world.  And I might add, I didn't see any loopholes that you are looking for in His statement.  And why is celibacy such a big deal?  Christ is saying that it is the only option after a divorce.  The church doesn't seem to have a problem demanding celibacy.  

[Scott Lloyd]

33 minutes ago, CV75 said:

But you did derail, causing me to think about whose hypocrisy is really on display here.

The Church's position is that sexual sin is sexual sin, no matter the orientation (no hypocrisy there). She expects all to be celibate until they are married (no hypocrisy there). Your issue is that ssm is not recognized by the Church as a legitimate marriage as she defines it.

This is true. In no case that I know of does the compassion and mercy of the Church countenance the continued and unrepentant commission of sin, sexual or otherwise. Even after rescuing the woman taken in adultery, Christ told her to “go and sin no more”; that is, to go and repent. 

[MustardSeed]

delete

Edited May 20, 2019 by MustardSeed

[The Nehor]

7 minutes ago, california boy said:

First time I have ever heard someone say that divorce is not frivolous in todays world.  And I might add, I didn't see any loopholes that you are looking for in His statement.  And why is celibacy such a big deal?  Christ is saying that it is the only option after a divorce.  The church doesn't seem to have a problem demanding celibacy.  

No, it is often used frivolously. I am not looking for loopholes. I am convinced a lot of people are going to hell for what they have done.

I am the wrong person to try to convince anyone of the benefits or joys of celibacy assuming there even are any. I personally hate it and suspect it has messed me up a lot. Such is life though. If God wanted me to be happy and content in this life he would have designed the world differently.

[clarkgoble]

16 hours 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.

Isn't the question not whether it's true but rather how broad the command is. After all Christ could easily view a command as tied to particular times. Indeed in his discussion of marriage and Moses he clearly does see it that way. He's opposing his edict to Moses in Mark 10:4-5 and makes various changes in Matthew 5. Is he giving an eternal rule, a rule for earth, or presenting how righteous people should act in an eternal sense? I think the latter. However the limits, due to individuals and culture that Moses appealed to, still persist. Put an other way "hardness of heart" means many people won't live their marriage vows. Christ seems to recognize it but thinks we should and that should be our goal.

So "true" seems a bit complex here. I'd say Christ is giving the ideal but simultaneously recognizing not everyone will live it. If by true you mean ideal then I certainly agree.

1 minute ago, The Nehor said:

I am convinced a lot of people are going to hell for what they have done.

Worth remembering that Christ also has forgiveness and repentance.

 

Edited May 20, 2019 by clarkgoble

[california boy]

24 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

This is true. In no case that I know of does the compassion and mercy of the Church countenance the continued and unrepentant commission of sin, sexual or otherwise. Even after rescuing the woman taken in adultery, Christ told her to “go and sin no more”; that is, to go and repent. 

How does a person repent if they stay in a second marriage?  According to the words of Christ, all sexual relations outside of that first marriage is adultery.  Being married a second time doesn't get you out of the fact that Christ considers that adlutery.

Yeah I am enjoying this thread a little more than I should as people figure out ways around the words of Christ to somehow avoid His commandment.  This time it is personal, not some situation they will never find themselves in.  Christ would never require celibecy for life after someone divorces.

[The Nehor]

28 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

Worth remembering that Christ also has forgiveness and repentance.

Yes, but generally that is contingent on not sinning anymore.

[The Nehor]

7 minutes ago, california boy said:

How does a person repent if they stay in a second marriage?  According to the words of Christ, all sexual relations outside of that first marriage is adultery.  Being married a second time doesn't get you out of the fact that Christ considers that adlutery.

Yeah I am enjoying this thread a little more than I should as people figure out ways around the words of Christ to somehow avoid His commandment.  This time it is personal, not some situation they will never find themselves in.  Christ would never require celibecy for life after someone divorces.

I am also busting out the popcorn for this thread though probably for different reasons.

[CV75]

37 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

This is true. In no case that I know of does the compassion and mercy of the Church countenance the continued and unrepentant commission of sin, sexual or otherwise. Even after rescuing the woman taken in adultery, Christ told her to “go and sin no more”; that is, to go and repent. 

Yes, and where ssm is not recognized by the Church as marriage, there is no adultery (strictly speaking) when the partners break their sexual exclusivity to each other, but  tehr is sexual sin (broadly speaking).