This may be somewhat off topic, but on divorce, it's worth noting not only that Christians have been "re-interpreting" that teaching since it was given, but that the quoted passage from Matthew is itself an example of this process. If you look at the corresponding passage in Mark 10, which was written before Matthew, you'll notice that Jesus forbids divorce under any circumstances. The Matthew version adds the clause permitting it in cases of adultery. Earlier texts are not necessarily more historically accurate than later ones, but in this case, it's hard to resist the conclusion that Mark's version more accurately represents Jesus' actual teaching, and Matthew's represents a watering down of this teaching in the later Christian community. So if Mormons have done this too, they're in good company.
Ask a Mormon, Part 4
- Thread starter Eran of Arcadia
- Start date
That's one answer . . .
I could also say (I don't know if this is the official teaching) that even if Jesus did say that, he meant it for that era, and has later made it clear that divorce is permissible in other situations, such as when abuse or neglect are occurring.
Remember, we never claim to derive all of our doctrine from the Bible.
I could also say (I don't know if this is the official teaching) that even if Jesus did say that, he meant it for that era, and has later made it clear that divorce is permissible in other situations, such as when abuse or neglect are occurring.
Remember, we never claim to derive all of our doctrine from the Bible.
GhostWriter16
Deity
Mark was written before Matthew?
I'll have to post Macarthur's Argument to the commentary in Ask a Theologian so you can refute it. I don't know all of the facts, but it was a worthwhile argument IMO.
I'll post it tomorrow.
As for the difference, I haven't done nearly the study that you have, but I would think you could give a general rule, and then later give an exception and both be accurate. There are two ways this work, and I think both are true.
The first is that Mark said "Divorce is not allowed." Which is true. Matthew said "Divorce is not allowed, except if your spouse commits adultery." So, Matthew (Or Matthew's writer) added a detail that Mark didn't add. This doesn't mean Mark is wrong, just that he omitted a detail (Remember also that Mark is a shorter book and thus omits more details.)
The second is that ideally, divorce would never happen, but it is allowed in one circumstance (Adultery.) Its not the ideal, but since she committed adultery already, you are not "Making her an adulteress" since she already is, and so you can end the marriage for that reason. But God isn't recommending it, merely saying its not Sin to end it. Perhaps it is still being above reproach to stay in the marriage.
@Eran- I know that you don't claim to get all of your teaching from the Bible, but I was under the impression that you don't believe any teachings of yours contradict it?
I'll have to post Macarthur's Argument to the commentary in Ask a Theologian so you can refute it. I don't know all of the facts, but it was a worthwhile argument IMO.
I'll post it tomorrow.
As for the difference, I haven't done nearly the study that you have, but I would think you could give a general rule, and then later give an exception and both be accurate. There are two ways this work, and I think both are true.
The first is that Mark said "Divorce is not allowed." Which is true. Matthew said "Divorce is not allowed, except if your spouse commits adultery." So, Matthew (Or Matthew's writer) added a detail that Mark didn't add. This doesn't mean Mark is wrong, just that he omitted a detail (Remember also that Mark is a shorter book and thus omits more details.)
The second is that ideally, divorce would never happen, but it is allowed in one circumstance (Adultery.) Its not the ideal, but since she committed adultery already, you are not "Making her an adulteress" since she already is, and so you can end the marriage for that reason. But God isn't recommending it, merely saying its not Sin to end it. Perhaps it is still being above reproach to stay in the marriage.
@Eran- I know that you don't claim to get all of your teaching from the Bible, but I was under the impression that you don't believe any teachings of yours contradict it?
We don't believe that any of our teachings contradict the parts of the Bible that a) are true (correctly translated and all that) and b) still current; ie, applying to our time and not superseded by later revelation.
Camber
Resident Family Therapist
I'm not sure if this was always the case, but I have read stories of Mormon men who had to live separately from their other wives and children after polygamy ended--they were only allowed to live with one of the wives from then on. I don't know if they were "divorced" per se (they were still sealed together, which is what matters in Mormonism), but they may have had a civil divorce to make things legal. If they cohabitated again (including having sexual relations) then they would be excommunicated.
Hello Eran, i would like to ask a question about faith in god and the loss of it, is it possible to regain one's belief in god once it has been lost? and if so what advice would the mormon faith give to someone that trys to pray but feels far from god while doing so?
Or - the way we see it - more people would just believe the revelations He is already sending.
Well, faith is a complicated thing. In fact, it is many complicated things - many people have different ideas of what constitutes faith. I do know that people have lost faith in God and then regained it (just as people have gained faith in God, or gained faith and kept it, and lost it and never got it back). If someone wants to regain their faith, they should consider what it is that led them to having faith in the first place - beyond that, I guess it depends on their individual circumstances.
Perfection
The Great Head.
So you believe that divorcing someone who beats you every day is immoral?
Keep in mind that it's re-marriage that's the sin!
Notenoughtrebs
Chieftain
- Joined
- Apr 22, 2010
- Messages
- 45
Eran, I just finished reading this thread and I think you've been remarkably patient, and you've done well with some pretty tricky questions.
I've got a couple more for you.
Does the Mormon church have a position on the evolution/creation debate? Just how old is the Earth, for example?
From what you've been saying (I could be wrong about this), the Mormon God is a physical being, who looks like a man, with muscles and hair and all. In that case, does he have ...digestion, excretion? Erections?
What about a navel? Does he have a navel?
I've got a couple more for you.
Does the Mormon church have a position on the evolution/creation debate? Just how old is the Earth, for example?
From what you've been saying (I could be wrong about this), the Mormon God is a physical being, who looks like a man, with muscles and hair and all. In that case, does he have ...digestion, excretion? Erections?
What about a navel? Does he have a navel?
The Church's official position is that that isn't a question on which salvation depends, and there is no definite doctrinal answer. However a) every scientifically literate member I have ever met accepts evolution, and b) Church-run schools teach it. In fact, BYU has a renowned paleontology department.
We do believe He has a physical body, yes. We also believe that it is perfected (as ours will be in the Resurrection) and thus operates a bit differently. I would suppose, but cannot say for sure, that this means He doesn't need food (and by extension, excretion) the way we do now.
As for the other one, I have no idea.
Again, couldn't say. I will have to find out after I am dead . . .
Why you think he looks like a man? Couldn't he look like a dinosaur?
Did he have physical existence before creation (whether by big bang or otherwise), or did he decide after it to create himself a body? Why he did so? Why do you think that he has a physical body, I mean there's probably some doctrinal reason, and I'm wondering what it is?
Did he have physical existence before creation (whether by big bang or otherwise), or did he decide after it to create himself a body? Why he did so? Why do you think that he has a physical body, I mean there's probably some doctrinal reason, and I'm wondering what it is?
He has a physical body (which predates the creation of our universe) because having a physical body is better than not having one. Exactly why this is I am not entirely sure, but we don't view physical bodies as limiting, as some do.
Notenoughtrebs
Chieftain
- Joined
- Apr 22, 2010
- Messages
- 45
Okay, so far so good. But I think I can see some conflict here. Take the navel question.
If he has a navel, why? He didn't ever (I presume) have an umbilical cord attached to it. It would seem weird (to me at least) if a navel is a 'perfect' physical characteristic.
So, maybe, he doesn't have a navel? But in that case, what about all the other 'imperfections' of the human body? Appendix? Back pain due to bipedal locomotion? Varicose veins due to heart elevated above the ground? Haemorrhoids caused by upright human stance putting pressure on the lower bowel? Indeed, if he doesn't have excretion, maybe he doesn't have bowels or intestines or an appendix at all? And by extension liver or spleen or kidneys? In fact, does he really need...organs? In that case, what occupies the space inside the body? If he does have all this stuff, without using it, why?
I'm not sure that it's enough to say 'I don't know', because any possible answer seems to imply some contradiction. The human body, with all its weaknesses, is a product of millions of years of evolution. In a sense, the entire human body is 'imperfect'. To say that God has 'a perfect human body' seems to me to raise huge problems. There is a huge conflict between the idea of perfection and the messy reality of human physicality.
Can you acknowledge that a conflict exists here?
Perfection
The Great Head.
No, Perfection is the messiness.
If your wife had oral sex with another man other than yourself would you consider that adultery? Do you think she should be excommunicated?
Would you have feelings of ill will towards her?
Assuming that both of you had temple recommends at the time she did this; do you think she ,you or both of you should lose your temple recommends?
Curious
Would you have feelings of ill will towards her?
Assuming that both of you had temple recommends at the time she did this; do you think she ,you or both of you should lose your temple recommends?
Curious
No, I am not sure what the problem is supposed to be. I am well aware how imperfect the human body is, but I have never claimed to know exactly how a perfect body would be different.
Why on earth wouldn't I?
I am not sure why I would think I should lose my temple recommend, but other than that the answer to all those questions is "that would be adultery and should be treated as such."
Yeah, does anybody really consider intercourse the only way to "cheat"? If my girlfriend kissed another dude, I would consider that cheating, let alone oral.
Ass for the perfected body questions, I don't think there is any material in LDS theology that would really help us answer them. We believe that a perfected body would simply be our bodies, without the physical imperfections...but not without being a person. If I had to hazard a guess, I imagine that God would still have organs, but they'd be free of pesky decay or pain...but there really isn't any scripture or revelation that would answer any of those questions either way.
Ass for the perfected body questions, I don't think there is any material in LDS theology that would really help us answer them. We believe that a perfected body would simply be our bodies, without the physical imperfections...but not without being a person. If I had to hazard a guess, I imagine that God would still have organs, but they'd be free of pesky decay or pain...but there really isn't any scripture or revelation that would answer any of those questions either way.
To me the perfect body -thing sounded odd too. Perfect with respect to what?
You could have perfect frame in snooker, or you can have perfect bed for sleeping, you can (in theory) have perfect sandwich, but these all have some measure, at least implicit, that says how their perfectness is decided. But what makes a human body, or more generally physical body perfect?
I guess the answer here would be that body's perfectness is defined by that of God, since he's the one who sets the standards.
You could have perfect frame in snooker, or you can have perfect bed for sleeping, you can (in theory) have perfect sandwich, but these all have some measure, at least implicit, that says how their perfectness is decided. But what makes a human body, or more generally physical body perfect?
I guess the answer here would be that body's perfectness is defined by that of God, since he's the one who sets the standards.
