Oaks talk doesn’t explain the scripture on remarriage

[Bernard Gui]

10 hours ago, MiserereNobis said:

As Hamlet says to Polonius: "Use every man after his desert, and who should ’scape whipping?"

As a member of The Elite Shakespeare Brethren, I'd like to point out that the phrase is "just deserts" (pronounced like desserts) coming from deserve. But hey, if it is raspberry cheesecake or bread pudding or tiramisu, I'll certainly take my just desserts

 

Whipping as in whipped cream? 🍨

[CV75]

6 hours ago, california boy said:

The reason why I keep saying that you aren't addressing the issues I bring up is because you are not explaining why you can invent an entirely different set of rules if you are straight and remarry.  For example, during the life of Christ, there were no eternal marriages going on.  So Christ is only talking about civil marriage.  None of those marriages are eternal in duration.  They will all end at death.  It is divorce from those marriages where a second marriage is committing a sexual sin.  Yet the church allows such second marriages and allows them to live in adultery as defined by Christ.

And this reasoning:  "But some mariages do not progress toward that ideal".  ALL divorce is not going to progress towards the ideal.  Yet, Christ did not give that loophole that you invented.  And doesn't the church give hope to those that aren't married on this earth that they will find someone in the next?  Why don't the same rules apply to those that divorce.  Be celibate the rest of your life.  Anything other than that is committing adultery according to Christ. 

You also seem to be suggesting that Christ permits temple divorce since they are the only ones that endure, but a civil marraige divorce is not allowed because it will not endure.  Really?  Is that the Church's position on divorce?  

You still aren't addressing the issues I bring up.  Repentance is not continuing in adultery, which a second marriage would be.  Repentance is stop doing what is immoral and promise never to do it again.  That would only be accomplished only by celibacy.  "Go thy way and sin no more" doesn't mean go back to your adulterous living with your second or third husband.

When you say this, are you talking about all marriages?  Because if that is the case, then you seem to be making a case to allow gay marriage.

Forgiveness and repentance does not come from continuing to live in an adulterous second marriage.  It only comes from ceasing to sin, which can only be through living a life of celibacy.  Or do straight couples get some kind of special pass where they can continue to live in adulltery and sin, but can repent.  This is the question that you continually are not answering.

Once again, Christ does not forbid divorce.  So no matter what the reason for the divorce is really unimportant. When the second marriage takes place, then that is where living in adultery occurs.  You keep allowing for adultery to continue by staying in that second marriage, but keep saying that repentance is possible.  Maybe it is just me, but I thought you had to quit sinning, (celibacy) before you could repent.  If Christ thought that a second marriage was not living in adultery then why did he specifically forbid it?  He didn't say that a second marriage was a pathway to repentance.  He said a secind marriage was a moral sin.  How can you claim that you have addressed the issues I bring up when you keep asserting that you can continue to commit adultery yet somehow still repent?  

I don't think I can be any clearer on what the issue is and why you haven't answered it.  

I think a lot has been misunderstood here, but maybe I can distill it:

Jesus taught us to judge righteous judgement. It is evident to me in the verses in question that the primary issue is “the hardness of your hearts” which leads to the divorce and adultery issues and questions. This hardness can be willful and against knowing better, it can be assumed through tradition, and it can be imposed upon the innocent through abuse. The Lord’s Atonement works for all of these forms as people seek to repent or find and adopt a better light than what they are currently working with.

Under such varied conditions as we have in mortality,  He also establishes and adjusts His commandments according to the general capacity of the children of the kingdom. There are times of ignorance God winks at, and times He commands repentance of that. So, in addition to answering the Pharisees' dishonest question, and pointing out that where divorce is not permitted, remarriage is not either (and conversely, where divorce is permitted, remarriage is also), Jesus is also saying it is wrong to first have hardness of heart.

Adam and Eve's marriage (Mark 10:6-9) is eternal marriage, the highest standard. My use of the terms "marriage," "divorce," and "adultery" in my posts refers to a marriage between a man and a woman (ssm is not included), whether within the priesthood order or not.

Thus, divorced couples (and it is irrelevant whether either or both were straight or not) are allowed to remarry.

[MiserereNobis]

49 minutes ago, CV75 said:

Thus, divorced couples (and it is irrelevant whether either or both were straight or not) are allowed to remarry.

I guess I still don't get it, since this goes directly contrary to Christ's clear statements. Now, if you were to say, "modern revelation has changed it" then ok, that would make sense. But where is that modern revelation? Or is there no direct revelation, just a policy? (sincere question, since I don't know and this thread has made it seem like there is no direct revelation). I guess you could also say because of the apostasy the words of the Bible have been changed. That would make sense, too. But no one seems to be saying either one of these things so I'm left confused.

Also, the whole thing about repentance isn't making sense to me, either. I think @california boy explained it will. The sin is not the divorce, the sin is the sex with the other person. The reason why remarriage is adultery is because divorce is not allowed and therefore doesn't happen. If you are married, get a divorce, remarry, then you are committing adultery against your first spouse with your second spouse because you are still married to your first spouse (no divorce allowed, no matter what civil authorities say) so sex with your second spouse is clearly adultery. To repent of that adultery you would have to stop having sex with your second spouse (which is what the Catholic Church teaches for those who have remarried). You have to live in celibacy.

What God has joined together, let no man put asunder.

Edited May 21, 2019 by MiserereNobis

[ALarson]

1 hour ago, CV75 said:

I think a lot has been misunderstood here, but maybe I can distill it:

Jesus taught us to judge righteous judgement. It is evident to me in the verses in question that the primary issue is “the hardness of your hearts” which leads to the divorce and adultery issues and questions. This hardness can be willful and against knowing better, it can be assumed through tradition, and it can be imposed upon the innocent through abuse. The Lord’s Atonement works for all of these forms as people seek to repent or find and adopt a better light than what they are currently working with.

Under such varied conditions as we have in mortality,  He also establishes and adjusts His commandments according to the general capacity of the children of the kingdom. There are times of ignorance God winks at, and times He commands repentance of that. So, in addition to answering the Pharisees' dishonest question, and pointing out that where divorce is not permitted, remarriage is not either (and conversely, where divorce is permitted, remarriage is also), Jesus is also saying it is wrong to first have hardness of heart.

Adam and Eve's marriage (Mark 10:6-9) is eternal marriage, the highest standard. My use of the terms "marriage," "divorce," and "adultery" in my posts refers to a marriage between a man and a woman (ssm is not included), whether within the priesthood order or not.

Thus, divorced couples (and it is irrelevant whether either or both were straight or not) are allowed to remarry.

Let's just deal with this honestly.  The statements in the Bible on this are very clear and the only truthful answer here is that our church (leaders) make exceptions and this is one of the topics or teachings where they are made.

 

Here are the scriptures:

Quote

Matthew 19:9 - And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife, except [it be] for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery.

No wiggle room there if we are honest.  But again we make exceptions today regarding remarriage.

Quote

Mark 10:11 - And he saith unto them, Whosoever shall put away his wife, and marry another, committeth adultery against her.

Again, no wiggle room unless you choose to qualify it or make exceptions.

Quote

Luke 16:18 - Whosoever putteth away his wife, and marrieth another, committeth adultery: and whosoever marrieth her that is put away from [her] husband committeth adultery.

And, another scripture that could not more clearly state this teaching regarding remarriage after divorce is committing adultery.

So yes, california boy is making a very valid point and argument here.  The bottom line and the plain truth is that our leaders make exceptions regarding this teaching.

Edited May 21, 2019 by ALarson

[CV75]

22 minutes ago, MiserereNobis said:

I guess I still don't get it, since this goes directly contrary to Christ's clear statements. Now, if you were to say, "modern revelation has changed it" then ok, that would make sense. But where is that modern revelation? Or is there no direct revelation, just a policy? (sincere question, since I don't know and this thread has made it seem like there is no direct revelation). I guess you could also say because of the apostasy the words of the Bible have been changed. That would make sense, too. But no one seems to be saying either one of these things so I'm left confused.

Also, the whole thing about repentance isn't making sense to me, either. I think @california boy explained it will. The sin is not the divorce, the sin is the sex with the other person. The reason why remarriage is adultery is because divorce is not allowed and therefore doesn't happen. If you are married, get a divorce, remarry, then you are committing adultery against your first spouse with your second spouse because you are still married to your first spouse (no divorce allowed, no matter what civil authorities say) so sex with your second spouse is clearly adultery. To repent of that adultery you would have to stop having sex with your second spouse (which is what the Catholic Church teaches for those who have remarried). You have to live in celibacy.

What God has joined together, let no man put asunder.

Here are the clear [clarified] statements:

  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 [His detractors], What did Moses command you? [He is condoning Moses’ command, which he received from God, to allow divorce]

  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. [He is explaining why He condones this law].

  6 But [He is explaining what He condones as a higher law] 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. [He is teaching the higher law despite His allowance for divorce. He is challenging those who ask permission to live the lesser law despite their knowledge of the higher law].

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

  11 And he saith unto them [His worshippers], Whosoever shall put away his wife, and marry another, committeth adultery against her. [He is explaining the expectation of the higher covenant, which He is hoping those who follow Him will honor in the spirit of the Sermon on the Mount, despite what He allows those who have not yet obtained]

  12 And if a woman shall put away her husband, and be married to another, she committeth adultery.

@ALarson I wish you well in your pursuit of honesty.

Edited May 21, 2019 by CV75

[ALarson]

4 minutes ago, CV75 said:

Here are the clear [clarified] statements:

 

 

 

  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 [His detractors], What did Moses command you? [He is condoning Moses’ command, which he received from God, to allow divorce]

 

  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. [He is explaining why He condones this law].

 

  6 But [He is explaining what he also condones as the higher law] 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. [He is teaching the higher law despite His allowance for divorce. He is challenging those who ask to choose to live the higher law despite what is currently allowed].

 

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

 

  11 And he saith unto them [His worshippers], Whosoever shall put away his wife, and marry another, committeth adultery against her. [He is explaining the expectation of the higher covenant, which He is hoping those who follow Him will honor in the spirit of the Sermon on the Mount, despite what He allows those who have not yet obtained]

 

  12 And if a woman shall put away her husband, and be married to another, she committeth adultery.

 

You are making all kinds of assumptions (and qualifying the actual words and teachings).  The scriptures I quoted above states the same thing three times.  They could not be more clear regarding this teaching.

The honest answer here is that sometimes our modern leaders make exceptions and no longer follow to the letter of the law what Christ taught. 

Edited May 21, 2019 by ALarson

[CV75]

4 minutes ago, ALarson said:

You are making all kinds of assumptions (and qualifying the actual words and teachings).  The scriptures I quoted above states the same thing three times.  They could not be more clear regarding this teaching.

The honest answer here is that sometimes our modern leaders make exceptions and no longer follow to the letter of the law what Christ taught. 

You are not making the right connections. Honestly.

PS I did make a minor edit or two while you were hastily retorting, and while i think that offers you more illumination, it is evident that wouldn't change your reaction.

Edited May 21, 2019 by CV75

[alter idem]

 

Quote

"And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for ^afornication, and shall marry another, committeth ^badultery: and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery."

So then, If this is to be interpreted literally as some wish to do, the exception is there.  It would seem that if a woman marries and then later determines she can't remain in the marriage and wants to get a divorce, she needs to 'fornicate', so that if she chooses to remarry, she can, without then bringing the stain of adultery on her new husband and new marriage.😵

For those who believe the strict interpretation of no divorce--except for a wife's adultery,  it would be the one way she can remarry legitimately......Essentially committing sin in order  to NOT be guilty of sin later.  Does anyone think this makes sense? because it seems pretty messed up to me.  Which is why I'd say the strict interpretation is incorrect.

Personally, I think Pres. Oak's gave a great explanation, one that makes sense.

[CV75]

18 minutes ago, alter idem said:

So then, If this is to be interpreted literally as some wish to do, the exception is there.  It would seem that if a woman marries and then later determines she can't remain in the marriage and wants to get a divorce, she needs to 'fornicate', so that if she chooses to remarry, she can, without then bringing the stain of adultery on her new husband and new marriage.😵

For those who believe the strict interpretation of no divorce--except for a wife's adultery,  it would be the one way she can remarry legitimately......Essentially committing sin in order  to NOT be guilty of sin later.  Does anyone think this makes sense? because it seems pretty messed up to me.  Which is why I'd say the strict interpretation is incorrect.

Personally, I think Pres. Oak's gave a great explanation, one that makes sense.

Strict and also an interpretation that has been divorced from other teachings and examples of Christ’s treatment of the topic. Sectarian and political bias discourage well-rounded interpretation and open-minded consideration as well.

Elder Oaks' explanation is great and makes sense, some folks are just trying to drill down for various purposes.

[JulieM]

22 minutes ago, CV75 said:

Strict and also an interpretation that has been divorced from other teachings and examples of Christ’s treatment of the topic. Sectarian and political bias discourage well-rounded interpretation and open-minded consideration as well.

Elder Oaks' explanation is great and makes sense, some folks are just trying to drill down for various purposes.

And some are adding their own words and interpretations to the actual words in the scriptures.  I think that’s ok to do if you make it clear this is your own opinion and it helps you with our current teachings that do not follow the strict law that was definitely once taught by Christ (if you believe what was recorded by more than one person).

However, if we stick with the actual words we have in these scriptures (and don’t add to them), we no longer follow that teaching.  

I see nothing wrong with admitting that.  There are many we no longer follow (to the letter).

Edited May 21, 2019 by JulieM

[Jeanne]

14 minutes ago, JulieM said:

And some are adding their own words and interpretations to the actual words in the scriptures.  I think that’s ok to do if you make it clear this is your own opinion and it helps you with our current teachings that do not follow the strict law that was definitely once taught by Christ (if you believe what was recorded by more than one person).

However, if we stick with the actual words we have in these scriptures (and don’t add to them), we no longer follow that teaching.  

I see nothing wrong with admitting that.  There are many we no longer follow (to the letter).

I so admire you and your integrity and honesty JuiieM. 

[california boy]

1 hour ago, CV75 said:

Here are the clear [clarified] statements:

  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 [His detractors], What did Moses command you? [He is condoning Moses’ command, which he received from God, to allow divorce]

  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. [He is explaining why He condones this law].

  6 But [He is explaining what He condones as a higher law] 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. [He is teaching the higher law despite His allowance for divorce. He is challenging those who ask permission to live the lesser law despite their knowledge of the higher law].

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

  11 And he saith unto them [His worshippers], Whosoever shall put away his wife, and marry another, committeth adultery against her. [He is explaining the expectation of the higher covenant, which He is hoping those who follow Him will honor in the spirit of the Sermon on the Mount, despite what He allows those who have not yet obtained]

  12 And if a woman shall put away her husband, and be married to another, she committeth adultery.

@ALarson I wish you well in your pursuit of honesty.

If I am understanding your belief, are you saying that living the higher law that Christ introduced in the New Testament is optional?  That we are only bound to the Law of Moses, (divorce allowed) but if we want to, we can choose to live the higher laws? (divorce not allowed).

Does that reasoning apply to all of the teachings of Christ?  We can still follow the Law of Moses, but if we choose we can live the higher laws that Christ taught?

[CV75]

39 minutes ago, JulieM said:

And some are adding their own words and interpretations to the actual words in the scriptures.  I think that’s ok to do if you make it clear this is your own opinion and it helps you with our current teachings that do not follow the strict law that was definitely once taught by Christ (if you believe what was recorded by more than one person).

However, if we stick with the actual words we have in these scriptures (and don’t add to them), we no longer follow that teaching.  

I see nothing wrong with admitting that.  There are many we no longer follow (to the letter).

What the Pharisees could not see is that it was Jesus who gave one law to Moses and another to Adam and Eve, and that He was permitting, and stating eh consequences, of whichever law they chose to abide.

By choosing to live the law of divorce under Moses, they were free to remarry without the stain of immorality specified in the higher law which Jesus alluded to with the Pharisees and taught the disciples more explicitly afterward. If they are claiming Moses’ is that higher law, they are committing adultery by divorcing and remarrying. If they are claiming to live the higher law of Adam and Eve’s they would not divorce in the first place or break the covenant and carry the stain of immorality if they remarried.

Honestly, it is quite simple. Look at the question and Christ’s reply through the eyes of a Pharisee, and though the eyes of a disciple, and compare.

And it’s not about an uninformed sticking to the actual words; we see where literally fundamentalist, black-and-white thinking gets us.

[california boy]

1 hour ago, alter idem said:

 

So then, If this is to be interpreted literally as some wish to do, the exception is there.  It would seem that if a woman marries and then later determines she can't remain in the marriage and wants to get a divorce, she needs to 'fornicate', so that if she chooses to remarry, she can, without then bringing the stain of adultery on her new husband and new marriage.😵

For those who believe the strict interpretation of no divorce--except for a wife's adultery,  it would be the one way she can remarry legitimately......Essentially committing sin in order  to NOT be guilty of sin later.  Does anyone think this makes sense? because it seems pretty messed up to me.  Which is why I'd say the strict interpretation is incorrect.

Personally, I think Pres. Oak's gave a great explanation, one that makes sense.

The scriptures do not say anyone can remarry if they are divorced.  Christ is clearly saying, if they do remarrry, they are committing adultery no matter what the reason for the divorce was.

[CV75]

1 minute ago, california boy said:

If I am understanding your belief, are you saying that living the higher law that Christ introduced in the New Testament is optional?  That we are only bound to the Law of Moses, (divorce allowed) but if we want to, we can choose to live the higher laws? (divorce not allowed).

Does that reasoning apply to all of the teachings of Christ?  We can still follow the Law of Moses, but if we choose we can live the higher laws that Christ taught?

You are not understanding it. See my reply to JulieM, as that might help.

But all commandments are optional in we choose to live the law and live in the kingdom we are willing to receive, and the Lord in His mercy designed them all. That is a rather basic teaching.

There are many lesser laws other than just the law of Moses, including those set by earthly governments that the Lord institutes and approves of. Even though He allows abominable laws to be enacted in the kingdoms of the world, but that's another thread.

[JulieM]

32 minutes ago, Jeanne said:

I so admire you and your integrity and honesty JuiieM. 

Ah, thank you Jeanne!  I just think it’s better to own that our current teachings aren't always exactly what Christ taught.  There are reasons things change and evolve, imo.

Edited May 21, 2019 by JulieM

[JulieM]

4 minutes ago, CV75 said:

You are not understanding it. See my reply to JulieM, as that might help.

But all commandments are optional in we choose to live the law and live in the kingdom we are willing to receive, and the Lord in His mercy designed them all. That is a rather basic teaching.

There are many lesser laws other than just the law of Moses, including those set by earthly governments that the Lord institutes and approves of. Even though He allows abominable laws to be enacted in the kingdoms of the world, but that's another thread.

Do you have a source from our leaders that teach what you are teaching specifically about Christ’s teachings on divorce?

This is a friendly CFR because I’d really like to know if any of them have taught what you’re stating here or if it’s just your own opinion.

[california boy]

4 minutes ago, CV75 said:

You are not understanding it. See my reply to JulieM, as that might help.

But all commandments are optional in we choose to live the law and live in the kingdom we are willing to receive, and the Lord in His mercy designed them all. That is a rather basic teaching.

There are many lesser laws other than just the law of Moses, including those set by earthly governments that the Lord institutes and approves of. Even though He allows abominable laws to be enacted in the kingdoms of the world, but that's another thread.

Honestly your answer to Julie makes absolutely no sense to me.  It is sounding like you are saying one can choose whatever commandments they want from the scriptures if one set of commandments are easier and ignore the higher law.

[SeekingUnderstanding]

1 hour ago, CV75 said:

Here are the clear [clarified] statements:

  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 [His detractors], What did Moses command you? [He is condoning Moses’ command, which he received from God, to allow divorce]

  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. [He is explaining why He condones this law].

  6 But [He is explaining what He condones as a higher law] 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. [He is teaching the higher law despite His allowance for divorce. He is challenging those who ask permission to live the lesser law despite their knowledge of the higher law].

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

  11 And he saith unto them [His worshippers], Whosoever shall put away his wife, and marry another, committeth adultery against her. [He is explaining the expectation of the higher covenant, which He is hoping those who follow Him will honor in the spirit of the Sermon on the Mount, despite what He allows those who have not yet obtained]

  12 And if a woman shall put away her husband, and be married to another, she committeth adultery.

@ALarson I wish you well in your pursuit of honesty.

So all we have to do is rewrite the scriptures! I think that this is okay as long as you are honest about it, and as long as you realize the exact same method you use here can be applied to justify gay marriage. 

[ALarson]

15 minutes ago, california boy said:

Honestly your answer to Julie makes absolutely no sense to me.  It is sounding like you are saying one can choose whatever commandments they want from the scriptures if one set of commandments are easier and ignore the higher law.

CV75 is simply putting their own spin and adding to the words we have recorded.  They have nothing other than their own speculation and interpretation that this is what Christ was teaching about divorce (that I have seen taught by our leaders.....I see a CFR has been issued, so it will be interesting to see what they have to back up their theories here).

I doubt anyone would accept this being done to our current leaders (ie. "well, I'm sure THIS is what our leader meant to say even though they didn't say it, so I'll add MY words to their's so it'll mean what I want it to mean"  )

Edited May 21, 2019 by ALarson

[bluebell]

15 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

This brings a scripture to mind.

2 Nephi 28:8 And there shall also be many which shall say: Eat, drink, and be merry; nevertheless, fear God—he will justify in committing a little sin; yea, lie a little, take the advantage of one because of his words, dig a pit for thy neighbor; there is no harm in this; and do all these things, for tomorrow we die; and if it so be that we are guilty, God will beat us with a few stripes, and at last we shall be saved in the kingdom of God.

So we reject the eternal covenant we entered into of our own free will and choice, a clear sin.  But then we take our stripes (ie, go through repentance).  And then God will let us get a brand new covenant of our choosing.  Not buying it.

I don't know that we can actually repent of walking away from a valid eternal covenant without returning to that covenant.    It seems patently insincere to claim repentance as long as you get what you want.  

Not at all.  Where does this scripture equate "God will justify in committing a little sin and beat us with a few stripes" with repentance?  From my understanding, it doesn't, not at all.  Besides that, in this life we all see through a glass darkly.  Sometimes covenants are made sincerely but with a lack of maturity and/or understanding.  

[alter idem]

1 hour ago, JulieM said:

And some are adding their own words and interpretations to the actual words in the scriptures.  I think that’s ok to do if you make it clear this is your own opinion and it helps you with our current teachings that do not follow the strict law that was definitely once taught by Christ (if you believe what was recorded by more than one person).

However, if we stick with the actual words we have in these scriptures (and don’t add to them), we no longer follow that teaching.  

I see nothing wrong with admitting that.  There are many we no longer follow (to the letter).

So, we're supposed to stick with the actual words....then, if a woman wants to divorce without carrying the stain of adultery to a subsequent marriage, she should fornicate?

Personally I'm very glad that is a teaching some believe we no longer follow.  It's pretty messed up.

[alter idem]

47 minutes ago, california boy said:

The scriptures do not say anyone can remarry if they are divorced.  Christ is clearly saying, if they do remarrry, they are committing adultery no matter what the reason for the divorce was.

It's not clear at all.  In the text I quoted, he made an exception for when the wife has committed fornication.  It's right in the text, and a literal reading, as many of you are doing, cannot ignore that.

[SeekingUnderstanding]

28 minutes ago, alter idem said:

So, we're supposed to stick with the actual words....then, if a woman wants to divorce without carrying the stain of adultery to a subsequent marriage, she should fornicate?

Personally I'm very glad that is a teaching some believe we no longer follow.  It's pretty messed up.

Don’t think this can be justified from the scriptures. Christ is only speaking from the Man’s point of view. For the man, he is allowed to remarry after divorcing his wife for fornication. It is unclear that the wife in this situation would be allowed to remarry. 

 

ETA: I will also state that the most straightforward way to harmonize the three scriptures (two which don’t have the fornication exception) is to read fornication literally. That is the wife fornicated before the marriage and hence the marriage would be annulled. See here:

https://www.desiringgod.org/articles/on-divorce-and-remarriage-in-the-event-of-adultery

Edited May 21, 2019 by SeekingUnderstanding

[ALarson]

8 minutes ago, alter idem said:

It's not clear at all.  In the text I quoted, he made an exception for when the wife has committed fornication.  It's right in the text, and a literal reading, as many of you are doing, cannot ignore that.

Yes, in Matthew it gives the exception (but only saving the first husband from committing adultery....not the second husband if she remarries):

 

Quote

Matthew 19:9 - And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife, except [it be] for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery.

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.

The other verses, allow no exceptions for the first husband:

Quote

Mark 10:11 - And he saith unto them, Whosoever shall put away his wife, and marry another, committeth adultery against her.

Quote

Luke 16:18 - Whosoever putteth away his wife, and marrieth another, committeth adultery: and whosoever marrieth her that is put away from [her] husband committeth adultery.

 

Edited May 21, 2019 by ALarson