Oaks talk doesn’t explain the scripture on remarriage

[alter idem]

5 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

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 adultery. It is unclear that the wife in this situation would be allowed to remarry. 

I doubt she would have been allowed to remarry, since in those days, she could have been stoned for her sin.  That's not the point, the point is that some are trying to say the CofJCofLDS should also follow this punitive standard of no divorce for women and only divorce for men who's wives have committed fornication and if we don't, we're not living God's laws.  Pres. Oaks gave explanations in two talks in General Conference to explain why the church allows for divorce, yet some are still critical of the church's allowance for divorce, something which is clearly compassionate and necessary for a society who are not yet able to live up to such a strict standard--and guess what?  Neither were the people in Moses' day or the people in Jesus' day.

 

[SeekingUnderstanding]

6 minutes ago, alter idem said:

  Pres. Oaks gave explanations in two talks in General Conference to explain why the church allows for divorce, yet some are still critical of the church's allowance for divorce, something which is clearly compassionate and necessary for a society who are not yet able to live up to such a strict standard--and guess what?  Neither were the people in Moses' day or the people in Jesus' day.

 

I don’t think a single person here has been critical of the church’s compassion for divorcee’s, rather they point out the hypocrisy in being compassionate (making up exceptions to the law of chastity) for one group (divorcee’s) and not another (gays and lesbians). 

Edited May 21, 2019 by SeekingUnderstanding

[ALarson]

9 minutes ago, alter idem said:

I doubt she would have been allowed to remarry, since in those days, she could have been stoned for her sin.  That's not the point, the point is that some are trying to say the CofJCofLDS should also follow this punitive standard of no divorce for women and only divorce for men who's wives have committed fornication and if we don't, we're not living God's laws. 

I think you are missing the point.  No one is arguing that we should "follow this punitive standard" today (that I have seen).

They are using it as an example of how exceptions have been made regarding teachings on marriage (and divorce).  Teachings change and there is no reason to believe they won't continue to change.

Edited May 21, 2019 by ALarson

[Hestia]

@california boy and others,

Please don't derail the thread to lgtbq topics.  If you want to discuss that then start your own thread.  

[SeekingUnderstanding]

4 minutes ago, Hestia said:

@california boy and others,

Please don't derail the thread to lgtbq topics.  If you want to discuss that then start your own thread.  

Not to murmur or object (it’s your board!) just wanted to make sure you were aware the OP doesn’t view this as a derail http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/71880-oaks-talk-doesn’t-explain-the-scripture-on-remarriage/?do=findComment&comment=1209906969

 

[alter idem]

33 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

Not to murmur or object (it’s your board!) just wanted to make sure you were aware the OP doesn’t view this as a derail http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/71880-oaks-talk-doesn’t-explain-the-scripture-on-remarriage/?do=findComment&comment=1209906969

 

I guess I didn't realize that was the direction the op wanted to go.  If so, I don't think I'm interested.

[USU78]

1 hour ago, Hestia said:

@california boy and others,

Please don't derail the thread to lgtbq topics.  If you want to discuss that then start your own thread.  

Danke bestens.

[CV75]

3 hours ago, JulieM said:

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.

It's an amalgam and synthesis of many congruent teachings. Collecting the several sources would be too cumbersome a task for me to handle. But I think it would be easy for you to agree with most if not all these points and even find sources that say, for example:

The Pharisees were His detractors and His disciples followed and worshiped Him.

He gave Moses Israels' laws, and He gave Adam and Eve their laws, and He gave all the prophets within their dispensations their respective laws. (D&C 128:9).

He sustains His own laws even when He gives "lesser" laws and counts it good for them, while also teaching that He has something better in mind. (D&C 88: 36-38; Mosiah 13: 27-18; Alma 25:15-16).

He often explains in scripture why He gives laws and makes changes from lesser to greater and vice-versa (D&C 105).

He often explains to His followers the higher law, as He did with the Sermon on the Mount and the disciples in private on this question.

ETA: scriptural references

Edited May 21, 2019 by CV75

[CV75]

3 hours 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.

In a way I am saying that, since that is what people actually do. Jesus was recognizing that fact in the way He answered the Pharisees' question, and He used this same approach with His detractors more than once throughout the NT.

[CV75]

3 hours ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

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. 

Except I didn't rewrite anything. Someone can certainly open up a thread about scriptural support for ssm, as if that has never been done before!

[CV75]

3 hours ago, ALarson said:

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"  )

Commentary on the scriptures is perfectly legitimate, and you'll note I did not change anything in the original text. Literally! My commentary is easily traceable to other scriptures that I provided in a response above. The rest is fairly common sense/understanding.

[JulieM]

55 minutes ago, CV75 said:

It's an amalgam and synthesis of many congruent teachings. Collecting the several sources would be too cumbersome a task for me to handle. But I think it would be easy for you to agree with most if not all these points and even find sources that say, for example:

The Pharisees were His detractors and His disciples followed and worshiped Him.

He gave Moses Israels' laws, and He gave Adam and Eve their laws, and He gave all the prophets within their dispensations their respective laws. (D&C 128:9).

He sustains His own laws even when He gives "lesser" laws and counts it good for them, while also teaching that He has something better in mind. (D&C 88: 36-38; Mosiah 13: 27-18; Alma 25:15-16).

He often explains in scripture why He gives laws and makes changes from lesser to greater and vice-versa (D&C 105).

He often explains to His followers the higher law, as He did with the Sermon on the Mount and the disciples in private on this question.

ETA: scriptural references

Ok.  But you can’t give any sources where our church leaders have taught this about the scriptures quoted here on divorce?

Then these really are your own opinions and beliefs here, right?

That’s ok of course.  I was just making sure and clarifying.  I also really was interested in any sources you may have agreeing with you (quoting our leaders).

[ALarson]

1 hour ago, CV75 said:

Commentary on the scriptures is perfectly legitimate, and you'll note I did not change anything in the original text. Literally! My commentary is easily traceable to other scriptures that I provided in a response above. The rest is fairly common sense/understanding.

Which translates into these being your thoughts and your theories.  Like others have stated, that's ok to do but you should be clear that's what they are.

I think it's a good idea to state that when you start adding words to what Christ was recorded as teaching and also adding your interpretations and own meaning to his words.  Your thoughts and theory are interesting.....and I sincerely mean that.  But there's no way of knowing that Christ meant what you are claiming here.

Edited May 21, 2019 by ALarson

[jpv]

On 5/20/2019 at 11:38 AM, CV75 said:

We are not disregarding what Jesus is saying in this verse, and also considering everything else He has said in every other verse, and what was reported as His attitude and response to sin and sinners in every other verse.

 

As far as an “official stance on this scripture”, what do the correlated materials say about this verse? They are easy to find.

 

They largely sidestep it.

[CV75]

1 hour ago, JulieM said:

Ok.  But you can’t give any sources where our church leaders have taught this about the scriptures quoted here on divorce?

Then these really are your own opinions and beliefs here, right?

That’s ok of course.  I was just making sure and clarifying.  I also really was interested in any sources you may have agreeing with you (quoting our leaders).

Yes I can, but as I mentioned it would be too cumbersome. If I find the time, I will provide them. The scriptures are handier and I thought more commonly accepted. If you want to reject the scripture quotes in favor of correlated materials, feel free to do so. If you want to accept the scripture references as my opinion, feel free to do so. Also feel free to provide contradicting scriptures that counter my points:

• The Pharisees were His detractors and His disciples followed and worshiped Him.
• He gave Moses Israels' laws, and He gave Adam and Eve their laws, and He gave all the prophets within their dispensations their respective laws. (D&C 128:9).
• He sustains His own laws even when He gives "lesser" laws and counts it good for them, while also teaching that He has something better in mind. (D&C 88: 36-38; Mosiah 13: 27-18; Alma 25:15-16).
• He often explains in scripture why He gives laws and makes changes from lesser to greater and vice-versa (D&C 105).
• He often explains to His followers the higher law, as He did with the Sermon on the Mount and the disciples in private on this question.

1 hour ago, ALarson said:

Which translates into these being your thoughts and your theories.  Like others have stated, that's ok to do but you should be clear that's what they are.

I think it's a good idea to state that when you start adding words to what Christ was recorded as teaching and also adding your interpretations and own meaning to his words.  Your thoughts and theory are interesting.....and I sincerely mean that.  But there's no way of knowing that Christ meant what you are claiming here.

"No way of knowing what Christ meant" is an all-purpose cop-out response.

1 hour ago, jpv said:

They largely sidestep it.

I would argue that.

As a matter of principle, a bill of divorcement under the lesser law frees up the parties to remarry, as does "loosing" the seal under the higher law, no matter how sinful the former spouses can be said to be.

Edited May 21, 2019 by CV75

[ALarson]

21 minutes ago, CV75 said:

"No way of knowing what Christ meant" is an all-purpose cop-out response.

Not at all (and that's not what I stated....I said, "there's no way of knowing that Christ meant what you are claiming here").  I do think your theories and thoughts here are interesting to read....but, when you start qualifying what Christ is quoted as teaching and then adding your own words to His,  you are simply expressing your own beliefs here. 

You absolutely do not know that what you have added or that your speculations are accurate or true.  That was the point I was making.  

Edited May 21, 2019 by ALarson

[california boy]

3 hours ago, CV75 said:

In a way I am saying that, since that is what people actually do. Jesus was recognizing that fact in the way He answered the Pharisees' question, and He used this same approach with His detractors more than once throughout the NT.

Interesting.  I didn't realize members could pick and choose how they wanted to live moral laws. and adultery is an option if you are able to follow the Law of Moses to justify it.  And you are saying all the laws that Christ gave are open for this kind of flexible interpretation?

[Calm]

Everyone chooses what commandments they decide to  follow and how.  They just can't choose the consequences of those choices.  Some might even think they are following exactly what Christ wants.  But it still amounts to personal interpretation if someone is not standing over one correcting actions as they happen.

Edited May 22, 2019 by Calm

[MiserereNobis]

10 hours ago, CV75 said:

Sectarian and political bias discourage well-rounded interpretation and open-minded consideration as well.

I imagine the "sectarian" part was directed at me, since I'm a Catholic.

I'd just like to point out that your defense of the LDS view is equally sectarian and also discourages open-minded consideration. The sectarian label cuts both ways in a religious discussion, so I don't find it particularly useful. Of course I'm going to be on the side of Catholicism -- I'm a faithful Catholic. Of course you are going to be on the side of Mormonism -- you're a faithful LDS. Now that we've established that, there's no reason to call anyone sectarian

 

[MustardSeed]

9 hours ago, alter idem said:

I guess I didn't realize that was the direction the op wanted to go.  If so, I don't think I'm interested.

It was not the direction I wanted to go.  I had a conflict with my ss teacher and came here instead to get clarity.

I did not receive any clarity.  Which made things clear for me.  

Then, later, California brought up a question about LGBTQ issues.  It is related but certainly politically charged.  I gave permission to veer as I am satisfied that there is no answer to my question, which leads me to question a lot of other things... and apparently specifically leaves California to question related to LGBTQ issues .  

 

[CV75]

13 hours ago, california boy said:

Interesting.  I didn't realize members could pick and choose how they wanted to live moral laws. and adultery is an option if you are able to follow the Law of Moses to justify it.  And you are saying all the laws that Christ gave are open for this kind of flexible interpretation?

Yes, but choosing the consequences how they live those laws, no. Know this: that every soul is free.

"Know this, that ev’ry soul is free

To choose his life and what he’ll be;

For this eternal truth is giv’n:

That God will force no man to heav’n." (Hymns #240)

[CV75]

11 hours ago, MiserereNobis said:

I imagine the "sectarian" part was directed at me, since I'm a Catholic.

I'd just like to point out that your defense of the LDS view is equally sectarian and also discourages open-minded consideration. The sectarian label cuts both ways in a religious discussion, so I don't find it particularly useful. Of course I'm going to be on the side of Catholicism -- I'm a faithful Catholic. Of course you are going to be on the side of Mormonism -- you're a faithful LDS. Now that we've established that, there's no reason to call anyone sectarian

The bias is sectarian, and is only a problem under certain circumstances. I said, "Sectarian and political bias discourage well-rounded interpretation and open-minded consideration as well," and that would certainly apply to me if I were asking questions and not really attending to the answers. As you can see, I've gotten this reaction from non-Catholics.

Edited May 22, 2019 by CV75

[CV75]

14 hours ago, ALarson said:

Not at all (and that's not what I stated....I said, "there's no way of knowing that Christ meant what you are claiming here").  I do think your theories and thoughts here are interesting to read....but, when you start qualifying what Christ is quoted as teaching and then adding your own words to His,  you are simply expressing your own beliefs here. 

You absolutely do not know that what you have added or that your speculations are accurate or true.  That was the point I was making.  

Neither do you absolutely know that what you just posted is accurate or true. Hence the all-purpose cop-out. It is very handy!

Edited May 22, 2019 by CV75

[ALarson]

42 minutes ago, CV75 said:

Neither do you absolutely know that what you just posted is accurate or true. Hence the all-purpose cop-out. It is very handy!

Ha!  Ok.... well then according to you, we're both using an "all-purpose cop-out". 😛

Bottom line here is that when you start adding words to what another person has stated so that it'll mean what you want it to mean, there's no way you know they'd agree with you after you've changed their statement.   Your theories here are interesting, IMO, but definitely not conclusive.  And, you have nothing from our church leaders showing they agree with your speculations regarding these scriptures about divorce.

Edited May 22, 2019 by ALarson

[Anonymous Mormon]

This entire topic is the epitome of what I find frustrating about this forum.

In nearly every topic the same 6 people all post negative, condescending, and rude things about the church. They take the most negative side of the topic and find a way to club the church and its members. They use statements about the church and its members such as: "hypocrisy in being compassionate," and "I am only pointing out the hypocrisy the Church has."

(note: I know the OP gave permission to change the topic - it is still annoying and what I dislike about this forum)

Every time anyone gives an honest opinion in answer to a question they tear it down. Often when someone quotes a specific modern day prophet or apostle they point out any weakness/mistake of that prophet/apostle to automatically disregard the actual statement at hand. Every time someone answers with a sincere thought-out post it is immediately countered with the same anti-Mormon arguments.

Amazingly, about 30% of topics devolve into the same old commentary of 'the Church is bigoted and hypocritical for how it treats Gays/Lesbians.' The rest of of the topics seem to devolve into snits about either a) the church is hypocrites (not enough love, practiced polygamy, accept tithing but neglect the poor, etc.) or b) that current church leaders don't receive revelation and are just making it up.

As someone who believes in the church's doctrines and who believes that President Nelson is a prophet who receives revelation from the Lord, the trajectory of comments on this board gets very tiring. It makes me not want to post at all. I some times feel like maybe I should keep posting just so someone rebuts all of the negativity because I know there are those reading who are looking for real answers and its important they see some. I respect those who do keep posting even though they must tire of it.

It is tiring that so many topics have to become a discussion on LGBT issues. Can we please start a new sub-forum outside of General and News called LGBT Issues? Then we make a rule that all LGBT topics must be in that forum and we can stop derailing all of the other threads with LGBT debates. Then I can just ignore that forum and enjoy conversations that aren't debates about LGBT.

Honestly, the constant and repetitive critical comments from the same 6 people is just tiring and makes me not enjoy this forum. If you don't know/what who I am referring to, then Follow The Likes. If you follow the trail of Likes you will see who/what I am referring to.