Oaks talk doesn’t explain the scripture on remarriage

[CV75]

1 hour ago, california boy said:

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.

There is no prohibition of either divorce or remarriage here.

[MiserereNobis]

2 minutes ago, CV75 said:

There is no prohibition of either divorce or remarriage here.

Yep, as long as you don’t have sex with the second spouse 😊

[CV75]

3 minutes ago, blueglass said:

 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?

Under certain conditions celestial glory can indeed be lost. In part that includes the kind of adultery one commits, the intent, willingness and rebellion with which he does it against the light he possesses, and how much he has rendered to the devil his agency and ability to repent. Elsewhere someone explained that being cast out (excommunicated) is a step in the repentance and forgiveness process.

[CV75]

4 minutes ago, MiserereNobis said:

Yep, as long as you don’t have sex with the second spouse 😊

I don't see where it says that, or any conditions set forth for remarriage.

Edited May 23, 2019 by CV75

[JLHPROF]

7 hours ago, ALarson said:

(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 believe true marriage is the joining of man and woman by God.  Anything else is a pale imitation.  I believe civil marriage is precisely that, a civil contract only binding within the society and easily dissolved under the same social contract. Valid yes, but lesser.

Whereas a covenant bound by priesthood authority and entered into with God cannot be ended by the same civil authority as a civil marriage.  Brigham's little bits of paper costing $10 have no effect on that covenant.  I do believe these sealings can be cancelled but only for violation of the covenant by one or both parties.  Not simply by choice.

[JulieM]

54 minutes ago, CV75 said:

I don't see where it says that, or any conditions set forth for remarriage.

Are you reading the same scriptures we’re reading?  It very clearly states this!

[JulieM]

3 hours 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. 

But you said “Therefore I retract what I said.  I retract everything that I said.”

You do state things in a very definite, conclusive manner and that makes it hard to not take you literally.  (Just an observation 😊)

Also, remember that every CFR is not an angry or belligerent issue.  As it appears here, many are just interested in seeing what you are referring to.  Many CFRs are friendly in nature.

Edited May 23, 2019 by JulieM

[JLHPROF]

49 minutes ago, JulieM said:

Are you reading the same scriptures we’re reading?  It very clearly states this!

Yes, but they haven't been wrested yet.

[Scott Lloyd]

8 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).  

 

If I recall correctly Alter Idem is female, so you needn’t refer to her in the plural. (‘Twould have been less confusing for me had you not done so.) 

[JulieM]

31 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

If I recall correctly Alter Idem is female, so you needn’t refer to her in the plural. (‘Twould have been less confusing for me had you not done so.) 

But when someone isn’t sure, it’s safer to just use “they” (which can be singular too).  That’s what I do too!  I wasn’t sure either about alter (same with many posters on here that I don’t know).  Better to not offend, imo. 

“they

pronoun

1. 

used to refer to two or more people or things previously mentioned or easily identified.

2. 

used to refer to a person of unspecified gender.”

 

But it is good to know she’s a she now 😊

Edited May 23, 2019 by JulieM

[JulieM]

1 hour ago, JLHPROF said:

Yes, but they haven't been wrested yet.

True 😛

[ALarson]

20 minutes ago, JulieM said:

But when someone isn’t sure, it’s safer to just use “they” (which can be singular too).  That’s what I do too!  I wasn’t sure either about alter (same with many posters on here that I don’t know).  Better to not offend, imo. 

“they

pronoun

1. 

used to refer to two or more people or things previously mentioned or easily identified.

2. 

used to refer to a person of unspecified gender.”

 

But it is good to know she’s a she now 😊

Exactly (and it shouldn't have been too difficult to determine who I was referring to).

I didn't know if alter idem was male or female and it is hard to tell just from some of the names (and even the avatars people choose).  I'll remember now that alter idem is female.

Edited May 23, 2019 by ALarson

[Scott Lloyd]

54 minutes ago, ALarson said:

Exactly (and it shouldn't have been too difficult to determine who I was referring to).

I didn’t know whether “they” referred to alter idem or to unspecified individuals you were demanding she cite in response to your CFR. My initial impression was the latter. An instance where use of the singular “they” resulted in confusion. 

I hate the singular “they,” which, until relatively recently, was widely regarded as substandard. But I’ve said so before on here, and I won’t repeat my rant. 

[Scott Lloyd]

55 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I didn’t know whether “they” referred to alter idem or to unspecified individuals you were demanding she cite in response to your CFR. My initial impression was the latter. An instance where use of the singular “they” resulted in confusion. 

I hate the singular “they,” which, until relatively recently, was widely regarded as substandard. But I’ve said so before on here, and I won’t repeat my rant. 

I did some thinking on this just now, and I came up with a way to illustrate how the singular “they” can be avoided. Consider:

EXAMPLE 1

A mark of a very good writer is that he or she will phrase a sentence in such a way as to avoid use of the singular “they”. 

EXAMPLE 2:

A mark of very good writers is that they will typically phrase a sentence in such a way as to avoid the use of the singular “they”.

[ALarson]

12 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

I believe true marriage is the joining of man and woman by God.  Anything else is a pale imitation.  I believe civil marriage is precisely that, a civil contract only binding within the society and easily dissolved under the same social contract. Valid yes, but lesser.

Whereas a covenant bound by priesthood authority and entered into with God cannot be ended by the same civil authority as a civil marriage.  Brigham's little bits of paper costing $10 have no effect on that covenant.  I do believe these sealings can be cancelled but only for violation of the covenant by one or both parties.  Not simply by choice.

I'm glad you posted your beliefs on this, JLHPROF.....I didn't want to speak for you.....thanks!

[CV75]

11 hours ago, JulieM said:

Are you reading the same scriptures we’re reading?  It very clearly states this!

I believe so:

14 hours ago, california boy said:

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.

 

He is not forbidding remarriage, only stating that under the higher law that He established in the beginning, it would constitute adultery under the circumstances described. If I'm missing something, please point it out (simply using bold type doesn't count).

 

Please keep it simple and literal and also correct.

 

Elsewhere He says, "“let not man put asunder”, or that divorce was not the design from the beginning. But He is not forbidding it under the lesser law. As we know, the Pharisees were going above and beyond the law of Moses to the point of abusing it, and Jesus was condemning this. Those who followed the spirit of the lesser law were under no condemnation.

 

To paraphrase Joseph Smith, that which is allowed under one law is not allowed under another. That which was allowed under Moses' law is not allowed under Christ's law. That which is allowed in the kingdom "because of the hardness of your hearts" is not allowed when the hearts become more mature. Today, tithing is allowed as consecration in substitution for the higher law the saints failed to live; building up the kingdom from Utah is a substitute for building it up from Missouri.

 

[JulieM]

21 minutes ago, CV75 said:

He is not forbidding remarriage,

I was responding to this post made by you (you say nothing about remarriage being "forbidden", just that there aren’t  “any conditions set forth for remarriage”):

http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/71880-oaks-talk-doesn’t-explain-the-scripture-on-remarriage/?do=findComment&comment=1209907528

But, there are definitely conditions or consequences given.

Specifically:

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.”

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

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.”

Romans 7:3 - “So then if, while [her] husband liveth, she be married to another man, she shall be called an adulteress”

Edited May 23, 2019 by JulieM

[MiserereNobis]

13 hours ago, CV75 said:

I don't see where it says that, or any conditions set forth for remarriage.

I guess we are looking at two different passages, then. It's fine that the LDS have different rules because of modern revelation. But I find it a bit strange that you are so adamant that the passage isn't saying what it clearly is saying. I'll just leave it at that.

[CV75]

39 minutes ago, JulieM said:

I was responding to this post made by you (you say nothing about remarriage being "forbidden", just that there aren’t  “any conditions set forth for remarriage”):

http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/71880-oaks-talk-doesn’t-explain-the-scripture-on-remarriage/?do=findComment&comment=1209907528

But, there are definitely conditions or consequences given.

Specifically:

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.”

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

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.”

Romans 7:3 - “So then if, while [her] husband liveth, she be married to another man, she shall be called an adulteress”

…which was in response to the Matthew 19:9 scripture being used to counter my post that “I don't see where remarriage is forbidden.”

As to there also not being “any conditions set for remarriage” in that verse, I was responding to the false claim that He said that remarriage is not forbidden “as long as you don’t have sex with the second spouse.” It simply doesn’t say that.

All the verses you listed have nothing to do with forbidding remarriage, either under the law of Moses, the higher law, or secular law for that matter. You’ve failed to show where remarriage is forbidden. Do you agree that it is not forbidden? You’ve only showed that remarriage could imply adultery under some circumstances, but that is not what is at issue as far as I’m concerned.

You are asking why remarriage doesn’t constitute adultery in the Church today, and I answered that in my reply to you, which you completely cut out of your reply quote and did not comment on. What do you think of it?

17 minutes ago, MiserereNobis said:

I guess we are looking at two different passages, then. It's fine that the LDS have different rules because of modern revelation. But I find it a bit strange that you are so adamant that the passage isn't saying what it clearly is saying. I'll just leave it at that.

OK I will ask you also (see above): point out in Matthew 19:9 where remarriage is forbidden. From what I can see, He is not forbidding remarriage, only stating that under the higher law that He established in the beginning, it would constitute adultery under the circumstances described.

You can abandon critical thinking and excuse shrugging off discussion to modern revelation (which I have not appealed to!). I am looking right at the verse in question. I think you are reading way too much into it and out of context with the rest of Jesus' New Testament sayings on the topic.

Edited May 23, 2019 by CV75

[JulieM]

9 minutes ago, CV75 said:

…which was in response to the Matthew 19:9 scripture being used to counter my post that “I don't see where remarriage is forbidden.”

As to there also not being “any conditions set for remarriage” in that verse, I was responding to the false claim that He said that remarriage is not forbidden “as long as you don’t have sex with the second spouse.” It simply doesn’t say that.

All the verses you listed have nothing to do with forbidding remarriage, either under the law of Moses, the higher law, or secular law for that matter. You’ve failed to show where remarriage is forbidden. Do you agree that it is not forbidden? You’ve only showed that remarriage could imply adultery under some circumstances, but that is not what is at issue as far as I’m concerned.

You are asking why remarriage doesn’t constitute adultery in the Church today, and I answered that in my reply to you, which you completely cut out of your reply quote and did not comment on. What do you think of it?

OK I will ask you also (see above): point out in Matthew 19:9 where remarriage is forbidden. From what I can see, He is not forbidding remarriage, only stating that under the higher law that He established in the beginning, it would constitute adultery under the circumstances described.

You can abandon critical thinking and excuse shrugging off discussion to modern revelation (which I have not appealed to!). I am looking right at the verse in question. I think you are reading way too much into it and out of context with the rest of Jesus' New Testament sayings on the topic.

I am reading the words we have from Christ.  You keep adding to them (that’s fine but don’t hold everyone to your added meanings or beliefs).  

For this discussion, let’s stick to the words we have that were recorded.

Who has said that they believe remarriage is “forbidden”?  I’ve only see you use that word, but haven’t gone back through the entire thread.  I’ve seen posted that there are consequences or conditions or that Christ didn’t want us to remarry after divorce (which makes sense since he taught that was adultery and he wouldn’t want us to commit sin).  

Edited May 23, 2019 by JulieM

[MiserereNobis]

40 minutes ago, CV75 said:

You can abandon critical thinking

🙄

[ALarson]

37 minutes ago, JulieM said:

I am reading the words we have from Christ.  You keep adding to them (that’s fine but don’t hold everyone to your added meanings or beliefs).  

For this discussion, let’s stick to the words we have that were recorded.

Who has said that they believe remarriage is “forbidden”?  I’ve only see you use that word, but haven’t gone back through the entire thread.  I’ve seen posted that there are consequences or conditions or that Christ didn’t want us to remarry after divorce (which makes sense since he taught that was adultery and he wouldn’t want us to commit sin).  

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

Here's the post by california boy:

Quote

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.

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

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

Edited May 23, 2019 by ALarson

[CV75]

1 hour ago, JulieM said:

I am reading the words we have from Christ.  You keep adding to them (that’s fine but don’t hold everyone to your added meanings or beliefs).  

For this discussion, let’s stick to the words we have that were recorded.

Who has said that they believe remarriage is “forbidden”?  I’ve only see you use that word, but haven’t gone back through the entire thread.  I’ve seen posted that there are consequences or conditions or that Christ didn’t want us to remarry after divorce (which makes sense since he taught that was adultery and he wouldn’t want us to commit sin).  

It goes back to the earlier pages of the thread where a couple of posters argue that  Church members "can remarry, when Jesus clearly said no, remarriage is a sexual sin." Sounds like forbidding remarriage to me, doesn't it sound that way to you?

Maybe they can come forward and explain themselves or retract their statements, one of which is copied below. I take it you agree that Jesus did not say that His followers cannot remarry, or that He forbade it because it was a sexual sin.

On 5/20/2019 at 6:50 PM, MiserereNobis said:

Why is it ok to tell the gay member to remain celibate and the straight member that they don't have to, they can remarry, when Jesus clearly said no, remarriage is a sexual sin? 

Again, correct me if I am wrong, california. 

 

49 minutes ago, MiserereNobis said:

🙄

OK I will ask you also (see above): point out in Matthew 19:9 (or any of JulieM's references) where remarriage is forbidden as you claimed in the 5/20 post.

@ALarson you keep butting in but your "help" is irrelevant and just plain wrong in the facts. cb said MN was EXACTLY right: Posted Monday at 06:54 PM

 

Edited May 23, 2019 by CV75

[ALarson]

48 minutes ago, MiserereNobis said:

🙄

Maybe we can solve something here  

Do Catholics believe that remarriage is "forbidden" (CV75's word) or just that there are consequences and conditions to remarriage after divorce if we are strictly going by Christ's words?  I am interested in your viewpoint even though this thread does seem to be about our church's teachings regarding those scriptures....

Thanks in advance!!

[JulieM]

4 minutes ago, ALarson said:

Maybe we can solve something here  

Do Catholics believe that remarriage is "forbidden" (CV75's word) or just that there are consequences and conditions to remarriage after divorce if we are strictly going by Christ's words?  I am interested in your viewpoint even though this thread does seem to be about our church's teachings regarding those scriptures....

Thanks in advance!!

Ok, you are right.  Maybe there’s a discrepancy between the two religion’s current teachings?

Either way, I haven’t seen anyone use the word “forbidden” or that anyone believes Christ taught that.  

(And your contribution here is just as relevant as anyone’s!  CV can’t eliminate opinions that disagree with their’s unless you decide to stop and as long as you’re  respectful !!)

Edited May 23, 2019 by JulieM