Oaks talk doesn’t explain the scripture on remarriage

[CV75]

25 minutes ago, ALarson said:

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.

I was only using it as an object lesson to illustrate how useless that kind of point is. I really don't hold to that approach. I'd rather folks comment on the actual content of my posts than what they think I think I know or what they think I'm doing to make those points.

I think it would be more productive to address the content of my posts, and whether they are consistent with scripture and with what our Church leaders have said.

Posted 15 hours ago

[ALarson]

21 minutes ago, CV75 said:

I was only using it as an object lesson to illustrate how useless that kind of point is.

I agree.  It's pretty useless to go through what Christ is recorded to have stated, and line by line add to his words so that they will mean what you are trying to argue they mean.

Is it possible he meant to say more or add to what he actually stated and taught?  Of course.  And, that's why it's ok to theorize and speculate like you have here as long as you state that it is your opinion or theory.

But, if we are sticking to His actual words (that were recorded by more than one person), the meaning you are attributing and adding is simply not there.

Let's move on as we're going in circles here....

Edited May 22, 2019 by ALarson

[CV75]

26 minutes ago, ALarson said:

I agree.  It's pretty useless to go through what Christ is recorded to have stated, and line by line add to his words so that they will mean what you are trying to argue they mean.

Is it possible he meant to say more or add to what he actually stated and taught?  Of course.  And, that's why it's ok to theorize and speculate like you have here as long as you state that it is your opinion or theory.

But, if we are sticking to His actual words (that were recorded by more than one person), the meaning you are attributing and adding is simply not there.

Let's move on as we're going in circles here....

None of that is important. The question was to provide something from Church leaders supporting this (as if Elder Oaks is not one of them) or how Elder Oaks' remarks comply with Jesus' teachings.

Evidently the connections between my remarks and Elder Oak’s talk have been overlooked. Below I’ve added them (in italics) into my commentary (bold😞

  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 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 gave this law—"But some marriages do not progress toward that ideal. Because “of the hardness of [our] hearts,” the Lord [did not] enforce the consequences of the celestial standard. He [permitted under Moses] divorced persons to marry again without the stain of immorality”].

  6 But [He is explaining 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. —"The kind of marriage required for exaltation—eternal in duration and godlike in quality—does not contemplate 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. – “Such unrighteous oppression of women was rejected by the Savior, who declared:“Moses because of the hardness of your hearts suffered you to put away your wives: but from the beginning it was not so. 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” In this version, the woman is not committing adultery at all by being put away—let’s chalk that up to the Bible being translated correctly]

  12 And if a woman shall put away her husband, and be married to another, she committeth adultery. [“…modern prophets have warned that looking upon marriage “as a mere contract that may be entered into at pleasure … and severed at the first difficulty … is an evil meriting severe condemnation”].

Edited May 22, 2019 by CV75

[ALarson]

7 minutes ago, CV75 said:

None of that is important.

LOL.  Of course it's important!  If we are discussing the actual words quoted that were spoken by Christ, it's important to stick to those words and not add our own and not qualify them, or add to them so they mean what you want them to mean (unless you are clear that you're speculating and theorizing).  His words are recorded in three different books in the New Testament (without your added words and meaning).

If someone was doing this to our Prophet today (adding words onto his and changing the meaning to suit their purpose), you'd be up in arms over it....and you should be!!

I am moving on here as this is getting to the point of being silly and we are just going in circles now.  

 

Edited May 22, 2019 by ALarson

[CV75]

5 minutes ago, ALarson said:

LOL.  Of course it's important!  If we are discussing the actual words quoted that were spoken by Christ, it's important to stick to those words and not add our own and not qualify them, or add to them so they mean what you want them to mean (unless you are clear that you're speculating and theorizing).  His words are recorded in three different books in the New Testament (without your added words and meaning).

If someone was doing this to our Prophet today (adding words onto his and changing the meaning to suit their purpose), you'd be up in arms over it....and you should be!!

I am moving on here as this is getting to the point of being silly and we are just going in circles now. 

Why are you moving on before you see how Elder Oak's talk conforms to Jesus' sayings? Feel free to ignore my commentary if that makes it easier.

Edited May 22, 2019 by CV75

[alter idem]

2 hours ago, Anonymous Mormon said:

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.

Yes.Thank you.

 

Edited May 22, 2019 by alter idem

[MiserereNobis]

5 minutes ago, alter idem said:

anyone would think living the Levitical Laws of Moses was better 

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. 

[ALarson]

13 minutes ago, alter idem said:

I was seriously shocked that some would criticize the church for being compassionate and considering individuals over the general collective of millenia and especially that anyone would think living the Levitical Laws of Moses was better than following living Prophets who speak for God in our day and our needs?  How does this happen?????

I didn't see anyone post that (but I may have missed reading some on this thread).

I think most (all) are grateful for the evolving teachings and that we are not held to the Levitical Laws of Moses regarding divorce.  And thankful that our leaders show compassion to those couples facing this decision today (along with the family members involved when a divorce occurs).

I'm going to issue you a CFR here to link to where anyone posted on this thread that they "think living the Levitical Laws of Moses" is "better than following living Prophets".  I'm interested to see if anyone actually believes that.

Edited May 22, 2019 by ALarson

[alter idem]

9 minutes ago, ALarson said:

I didn't see anyone post that (but I may have missed reading some on this thread).

I think most (all) are grateful for the evolving teachings and that we are not held to the Levitical Laws of Moses regarding divorce.  And thankful that our leaders show compassion to those couples facing this decision today (along with the family members involved when a divorce occurs).

I'm going to issue you a CFR here to link to where anyone posted on this thread that they "think living the Levitical Laws of Moses" is "better than following living Prophets".  I'm interested to see if anyone actually believes that.

I'm beginning to see where I fall into difficulty with some discussions on the forum.  I give my opinion of what I think is happening and some on the forum take it to be literal.

Here's the answer to your call for reference.  NO ONE used the term 'levitical laws of Moses', I was giving my own assessment of what they were suggesting.  Does that make sense?

Therefore I retract what I said.  I retract everything that I said.  In the future, if I post,  I will try to be careful in my writing style since there seems to be a problem with how it is perceived and comprehended by some on this forum.

[CV75]

3 minutes ago, alter idem said:

I'm beginning to see where I fall into difficulty with some discussions on the forum.  I give my opinion of what I think is happening and some on the forum take it to be literal.

Here's the answer to your call for reference.  NO ONE used the term 'levitical laws of Moses', I was giving my own assessment of what they were suggesting.  Does that make sense?

Therefore I retract what I said.  I retract everything that I said.  In the future, if I post,  I will try to be careful in my writing style since there seems to be a problem with how it is perceived and comprehended by some on this forum.

You were referring to the notion that was discussed briefly (and yet more than necessary), that members can pick and choose which commandments they keep, or in keeping the lesser and higher laws, right?

[california boy]

3 hours ago, CV75 said:

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)

Oh sorry.  I thought we were talking about. how Christ wanted us to not remarry, not choices people make.  Seems like two entirely different subjects.

Edited May 22, 2019 by california boy

[CV75]

Just now, california boy said:

Oh sorry.  I thought we were talking about. how Christ wanted us to live our lives, not choices people make.  Seems like two entirely different subjects.

They are. He wants us to live our lives by choosing His path, and not being forced to do so.

[ALarson]

36 minutes ago, alter idem said:

I'm beginning to see where I fall into difficulty with some discussions on the forum.  I give my opinion of what I think is happening and some on the forum take it to be literal.

On this forum, when you make a definite and specific accusation against others posting on a thread, you need to back up that accusation with a link to who stated what you claim.  That keeps the conversation honest and I think it's a good rule here.

If you overstated what you meant, then just clarify....

I don't believe you had to specifically find a quote with the words "Livitical Laws of Moses" in it....but I've seen no one post anything other than they are grateful the teachings have evolved into more compassion regarding the topic of divorce.  I have seen no one say they dispute how our current leaders teach on this and how they handle individual situations with compassion and love.

So, if you have a post to back up your claim, just post a link.  If not, then admit you spoke in error...👍

You stated this:

Quote

I was seriously shocked that some would criticize the church for being compassionate and considering individuals over the general collective of millenia and especially that anyone would think living the Levitical Laws of Moses was better than following living Prophets who speak for God in our day and our needs?

So, just supply a link to who those "some" are that posted these feelings or beliefs.

(Maybe you are referring to some of JLHPROF's posts?  I'd have to look them up and I'm not even sure he posted on this thread.  But I do think he believes that only marriages performed in the temple (sealings) are valid marriages and I also think he does not believe in cancelling those sealings....I don't want to speak for him though and he can clarify if I'm wrong.)

Edited May 22, 2019 by ALarson

[Scott Lloyd]

1 hour ago, ALarson said:

On this forum, when you make a definite and specific accusation against others posting on a thread, you need to back up that accusation with a link to who stated what you claim.  That keeps the conversation honest and I think it's a good rule here.

If you overstated what you meant, then just clarify....

I don't believe you had to specifically find a quote with the words "Livitical Laws of Moses" in it....but I've seen no one post anything other than they are grateful the teachings have evolved into more compassion regarding the topic of divorce.  I have seen no one say they dispute how our current leaders teach on this and how they handle individual situations with compassion and love.

So, if you have a post to back up your claim, just post a link.  If not, then admit you spoke in error...👍

You stated this:

So, just supply a link to who those "some" are that posted these feelings or beliefs.

(Maybe you are referring to some of JLHPROF's posts?  I'd have to look them up and I'm not even sure he posted on this thread.  But I do think he believes that only marriages performed in the temple (sealings) are valid marriages and I also think he does not believe in cancelling those sealings....I don't want to speak for him though and he can clarify if I'm wrong.)

I don’t see that Alter Idem was making a “definite and specific accusation” so much as conveying an overall impression. I think you need to stand down. 

[ALarson]

18 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I don’t see that Alter Idem was making a “definite and specific accusation” so much as conveying an overall impression. I think you need to stand down. 

Alter idem removed their post.  I was actually interested to see if there was anyone who had posted what was claimed (I would have been "shocked" as well if anyone feels this way today).  

 

Edited May 23, 2019 by ALarson

[JulieM]

2 hours ago, alter idem said:

I'm beginning to see where I fall into difficulty with some discussions on the forum.  I give my opinion of what I think is happening and some on the forum take it to be literal.

Here's the answer to your call for reference.  NO ONE used the term 'levitical laws of Moses', I was giving my own assessment of what they were suggesting.  Does that make sense?

Therefore I retract what I said.  I retract everything that I said.  In the future, if I post,  I will try to be careful in my writing style since there seems to be a problem with how it is perceived and comprehended by some on this forum.

alter, you’ll learn that the 3 letters “IMO” are your best friend to avoid having a CFR issued for you.  When you make an accusation that someone has posted or stated something, be ready to back it up with a link to their post where they did state that.  Or just say something like, “It seems to me that you are saying....thus and thus, is that right?” (just to make sure).

Hopefully this helps! 

[CV75]

5 hours ago, california boy said:

Oh sorry.  I thought we were talking about. how Christ wanted us to not remarry, not choices people make.  Seems like two entirely different subjects.

I don't see where He is forbidding us to remarry, but decrying divorce/"putting away" for the trivial reasons sometimes allowed under laws other than that which He instituted "from the beginning." I don't see where remarriage is forbidden, and while adultery in any of its many forms under the lesser and greater laws is forbidden, it is not unforgivable. 

Edited May 22, 2019 by CV75

[alter idem]

3 hours ago, JulieM said:

alter, you’ll learn that the 3 letters “IMO” are your best friend to avoid having a CFR issued for you.  When you make an accusation that someone has posted or stated something, be ready to back it up with a link to their post where they did state that.  Or just say something like, “It seems to me that you are saying....thus and thus, is that right?” (just to make sure).

Hopefully this helps! 

I usually use 'IMO' just for that purpose, but thank you for trying to help.

[alter idem]

5 hours ago, ALarson said:

On this forum, when you make a definite and specific accusation against others posting on a thread, you need to back up that accusation with a link to who stated what you claim.  That keeps the conversation honest and I think it's a good rule here.

If you overstated what you meant, then just clarify....

I don't believe you had to specifically find a quote with the words "Livitical Laws of Moses" in it....but I've seen no one post anything other than they are grateful the teachings have evolved into more compassion regarding the topic of divorce.  I have seen no one say they dispute how our current leaders teach on this and how they handle individual situations with compassion and love.

So, if you have a post to back up your claim, just post a link.  If not, then admit you spoke in error...👍

You stated this:

So, just supply a link to who those "some" are that posted these feelings or beliefs.

(Maybe you are referring to some of JLHPROF's posts?  I'd have to look them up and I'm not even sure he posted on this thread.  But I do think he believes that only marriages performed in the temple (sealings) are valid marriages and I also think he does not believe in cancelling those sealings....I don't want to speak for him though and he can clarify if I'm wrong.)

I think we've had run ins before because you and I are apparently having trouble comprehending eachother's posts--In MY Opinion.  I think you read me literally and assume I meant something, IMO, when I did not mean it the way you've interpreted.  If I was making a definite and specific accusation against someone or some people, I'd name them--I was not making a definite and specific accusation against anyone in particular. As was suggested, I was making a comment about an over-all impression. 

 

[alter idem]

3 hours ago, ALarson said:

They removed their post.  I was actually interested to see if there was anyone who had posted what was claimed (I would have been "shocked" as well if anyone feels this way today).  

 

I removed my post, not because I felt I did anything wrong, but because I didn't want to deal with any more possible negative responses regarding the thoughts I shared on this thread. 

[ALarson]

7 minutes ago, alter idem said:

I think we've had run ins before because you and I are apparently having trouble comprehending eachother's posts--In MY Opinion.

I think you may have me mixed up with someone else on here?  I have no memory of any "run ins" with you (I do remember interacting regarding the divorce of Joseph F. Smith and his first wife and I thanked you for a more thorough telling of the story).

Was there another time we had a conversation (that didn't end well)?  If so....I apologize and honestly do not remember.

Even here regarding this, I was agreeing with you that it would be shocking to see anyone post the opinion you felt they were expressing (that's why I was interested in reading what you were referring to).   It was a CFR issued for that reason (I was curious to read any posts expressing what you had stated).

Edited May 22, 2019 by ALarson

[ALarson]

4 minutes ago, alter idem said:

I removed my post, not because I felt I did anything wrong, but because I didn't want to deal with any more possible negative responses regarding the thoughts I shared on this thread. 

Ok.  So you still believe there were those here who posted what you stated ("I was seriously shocked that some would criticize the church for being compassionate and considering individuals over the general collective of millenia and especially that anyone would think living the Levitical Laws of Moses was better than following living Prophets who speak for God in our day and our needs")? 

If so, I missed those posts and that's why I issued the CFR as I was curious to read them.

I've only seen members post the opposite from what you claimed (that they are grateful things have evolved to a more compassionate level regarding divorces in the church).

 

Edited May 22, 2019 by ALarson

[california boy]

45 minutes ago, CV75 said:

I don't see where He is forbidding us to remarry, but decrying divorce/"putting away" for the trivial reasons sometimes allowed under laws other than that which He instituted "from the beginning." I don't see where remarriage is forbidden, and while adultery in any of its many forms under the lesser and greater laws is forbidden, it is not unforgivable. 

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.

 

[JulieM]

33 minutes ago, ALarson said:

Ok.  So you still believe there were those here who posted what you stated ("I was seriously shocked that some would criticize the church for being compassionate and considering individuals over the general collective of millenia and especially that anyone would think living the Levitical Laws of Moses was better than following living Prophets who speak for God in our day and our needs")? 

If so, I missed those posts and that's why I issued the CFR as I was curious to read them.

I've only seen members post the opposite from what you claimed (that they are grateful things have evolved to a more compassionate level regarding divorces in the church).

 

That’s all I’ve seen on here too.  I hope no one still wants to be living the Leviticus Law of Moses 🤣

 

[blueglass]

2 hours ago, CV75 said:

 I don't see where remarriage is forbidden, and while adultery in any of its many forms under the lesser and greater laws is forbidden, it is not unforgivable. 

 I think it is forgiveable but why did Joseph say that Celestial glory can be lost?  “If a man commit adultery, he cannot receive the celestial kingdom of God. Even if he is saved in any kingdom, it cannot be the celestial kingdom” (HC 6:81)

Also 2nd strike adultery is not forgiveable. DandCov42

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

One strike lose celestial, but retain terrestrial after forgiveness, 2nd strike adultery fall down another tier to Telestial?