This week, our Come Follow Me curriculum brings us to the Family: A Proclamation to the World. We discuss how it applies to all of us, and the eternal nature of gender and families. Study with me!
Anchor.fm:
Soundcloud:
Youtube:
Showing posts with label #family. Show all posts
Showing posts with label #family. Show all posts
Sunday, December 12, 2021
Sunday, July 18, 2021
Ward Preacher Podcast Ep 134 - Is God Free?
This week, our Come Follow Me curriculum brings us to D&C 81-83. We discuss how to serve, that the Lord is bound, and the responsibility of family. Study with me!
Anchor.fm:
Soundcloud:
https://soundcloud.com/user-961318159/ward-preacher-podcast-ep-134-is-god-free
Youtube:
Thursday, November 3, 2016
Jesus didn't suffer for you
"Jesus suffered for me."
There is nothing technically wrong with this phrase. As a Christian, I believe it to be true for any human being who uses it... but it also feels off... like someone who says "your an idiot" on Facebook instead of "you're an idiot" or insists on driving a few miles per hour below the speed limit in the left lane on the freeway. Everyone kind of understands what is meant by these practices, but still... they irritate.
There is a valid place for understanding that the sacrifice of Jesus Christ is not just a generic theological concept, but that individual faith and penitence can allow access to infinite grace, healing, and power. Certainly there are many concepts that show the importance of individual salvation. A man will be punished for their own sins, and not for Adam's transgression. (A of F 2) The message given to the Apostle Peter.. "what God hath cleansed, that call not thou common" (Acts 10:15), or the teaching of John the Baptist "And think not to say within yourselves, We have Abraham to our father: for I say unto you, that God is able of these stones to raise up children unto Abraham." (Matthew 3:9)... all of these ideas tend to suggest that a person's family, circumstances, and background are not as important as the individual decisions each person makes relating to their faith.
On the other hand, groups of people are important to God.
Consider these passages:
The connection can be traced back to Abraham... who in a time of idolatry and wickedness insisted on seeking the Lord in everything he did. Abraham's son Isaac honored the covenant that God had made with his father. Rebekah, Isaac's wife, helped guide young Jacob to receive the blessings of the Lord. Genesis describes a wrestle in which Jacob proves his desire to obtain the favor of the Lord (Genesis 32:24-30). This experience shows something remarkable about the bond between God and Jacob.
Like Abraham, Jacob had been blessed of the Lord... but he was certain that he could do and be more. He worked diligently, believing that he could receive a greater blessing.
This desire is the one that Jesus tried to inspire in the children of Israel when he taught:
Though he acknowledges the blessings of God... Jacob's actions are not really centered on his personal relationship with the Lord. Israel realized that he was a link in a great chain. He had been guided to divine providence following in the footsteps of his grandfather Abraham... with the patriarchal blessing of his father Isaac... and by following the wise counsel of his mother Rebekah. His efforts were to secure these same blessings for his own family, and his last act before he died was to bless his children.
What guided Jacob to God? What made his children so important to the Lord? This statement by Bruce R. McConkie provides additional clarity:
What it does mean is that there is a tendency to recognize the divine. There is access to the holy priesthood. There is opportunity to learn the truths of the Lord.
For thousands of years, God has maintained his connection with Israel's children not because they were necessarily better than other people... but because he is showing that true salvation is never only about individuals. Salvation is about permanent bonds with families.
Modern prophets have affirmed this truth:
"Sacred ordinances and covenants available in holy temples make it possible for individuals to return to the presence of God, and for families to be united eternally." (The Family: A Proclamation to the World, emphasis added)
Additionally, Israel will be literally gathered together, and every promise made with the ancient patriarchs will be fulfilled. Christ himself affirmed ancient prophecy when he recited this about the children of Israel:
"Depart ye, depart ye, go ye out from thence, touch not that which is unclean; go ye out of the midst of her; be ye clean that bear the vessels of the Lord. For ye shall not go out with haste nor go by flight; for the Lord will go before you, and the God of Israel shall be your rearward." (3 Nephi 20:41-42)
If you are inspired to get up on Fast Sunday and share your testimony about how important Jesus is... that's fantastic! If you are inspired to talk about how the Lord has blessed you... great! If you want to talk about how the suffering of Christ has brought peace and happiness... Amen!
Just remember... It was never about just you. Though he individually knows you and individually loves you and individually suffered for you... it was never about just you. You are a link in a great chain. You have a part in curses, blessings, and covenants that were made when human civilization was in its infancy. You are connected to those who have gone before, and those who will come after you.
Your potential was never to return to the presence of God all alone... Jesus suffered for you to be united with your spouse, your parents, and your children. He suffered to purchase for you a place in the mansions (plural) of His Father. His commandments were given so that you could "be the children of your Father which is in heaven." (Matthew 5:45) He atoned so that you could be a part of his family.
Jesus suffered for us.
There is nothing technically wrong with this phrase. As a Christian, I believe it to be true for any human being who uses it... but it also feels off... like someone who says "your an idiot" on Facebook instead of "you're an idiot" or insists on driving a few miles per hour below the speed limit in the left lane on the freeway. Everyone kind of understands what is meant by these practices, but still... they irritate.
There is a valid place for understanding that the sacrifice of Jesus Christ is not just a generic theological concept, but that individual faith and penitence can allow access to infinite grace, healing, and power. Certainly there are many concepts that show the importance of individual salvation. A man will be punished for their own sins, and not for Adam's transgression. (A of F 2) The message given to the Apostle Peter.. "what God hath cleansed, that call not thou common" (Acts 10:15), or the teaching of John the Baptist "And think not to say within yourselves, We have Abraham to our father: for I say unto you, that God is able of these stones to raise up children unto Abraham." (Matthew 3:9)... all of these ideas tend to suggest that a person's family, circumstances, and background are not as important as the individual decisions each person makes relating to their faith.
On the other hand, groups of people are important to God.
Consider these passages:
- "The Lord did not set his love upon you, nor choose you, because ye were more in number than any people; for ye were the fewest of all people: But because the Lord loved you, and because he would keep the oath which he had sworn unto your fathers..." (Deuteronomy 7:7-8)
- "Neither shall thy name any more be called Abram, but thy name shall be Abraham; for a father of many nations have I made thee. And I will make thee exceeding fruitful, and I will make nations of thee, and kings shall come out of thee. And I will establish my covenant between me and thee and thy seed after thee in their generations for an everlasting covenant, to be a God unto thee, and to thy seed after thee. And I will give unto thee, and to thy seed after thee, the land wherein thou art a stranger, all the land of Canaan, for an everlasting possession; and I will be their God." (Genesis 17:5-8)
- "And Joshua, and all Israel with him, took Achan the son of Zerah, and the silver, and the garment, and the wedge of gold, and his sons, and his daughters, and his oxen, and his asses, and his sheep, and his tent, and all that he had... And all Israel stoned him with stones, and burned them with fire..." (Joshua 7:24-25)
The impact of a few upon large numbers of people is notable. People have been blessed greatly or punished severely because of their association with others. The Egyptians unfortunate enough to have served in Pharaoh's army when he pursued Moses into the Red Sea seem as randomly placed as the lame man that Peter healed to prove that Christ's power had not ended at the crucifixion.
Jesus Christ himself declared his favoritism to the house of Israel to a woman who sought his help:
"And, behold, a woman of Canaan came out of the same coasts, and cried unto him, saying, Have mercy on me, O Lord, thou Son of David; my daughter is grievously vexed with a devil. But he answered her not a word. And his disciples came and besought him, saying, Send her away; for she crieth after us. But he answered and said, I am not sent but unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel. Then came she and worshipped him, saying, Lord, help me. But he answered and said, It is not meet to take the children’s bread, and to cast it to dogs. And she said, Truth, Lord: yet the dogs eat of the crumbs which fall from their masters’ table. Then Jesus answered and said unto her, O woman, great is thy faith: be it unto thee even as thou wilt. And her daughter was made whole from that very hour." (Matthew 15:22-28)Again when he appeared to the Nephites, he affirmed his connection with the covenants of Israel:
"And then will I remember my covenant which I have made unto my people, O house of Israel, and I will bring my gospel unto them. And I will show unto thee, O house of Israel, that the Gentiles shall not have power over you; but I will remember my covenant unto you, O house of Israel, and ye shall come unto the knowledge of the fulness of my gospel." (3 Nephi 16:11-12)God's promises to the house of Israel are notable. If Christ cares so much about individuals, (and not just certain people, but individuals from every nation, kindred, tongue, and people), how was it ever possible that he became so tightly coupled with the children of Jacob?
The connection can be traced back to Abraham... who in a time of idolatry and wickedness insisted on seeking the Lord in everything he did. Abraham's son Isaac honored the covenant that God had made with his father. Rebekah, Isaac's wife, helped guide young Jacob to receive the blessings of the Lord. Genesis describes a wrestle in which Jacob proves his desire to obtain the favor of the Lord (Genesis 32:24-30). This experience shows something remarkable about the bond between God and Jacob.
Like Abraham, Jacob had been blessed of the Lord... but he was certain that he could do and be more. He worked diligently, believing that he could receive a greater blessing.
This desire is the one that Jesus tried to inspire in the children of Israel when he taught:
"Ask, and it shall be given you; seek, and ye shall find; knock, and it shall be opened unto you: For every one that asketh receiveth; and he that seeketh findeth; and to him that knocketh it shall be opened. Or what man is there of you, whom if his son ask bread, will he give him a stone? Or if he ask a fish, will he give him a serpent? If ye then, being evil, know how to give good gifts unto your children, how much more shall your Father which is in heaven give good things to them that ask him?" (Matthew 7:7-11)How did Jacob develop this desire to be blessed, and the faith to ask, seek, and knock? Surely he could have said that the power of Jesus enabled him. Though he lived thousands of years before the birth of Christ, because of the timeless and infinite power of the atonement, it would not have been inaccurate for him to proclaim that "Jesus suffered for me."
Though he acknowledges the blessings of God... Jacob's actions are not really centered on his personal relationship with the Lord. Israel realized that he was a link in a great chain. He had been guided to divine providence following in the footsteps of his grandfather Abraham... with the patriarchal blessing of his father Isaac... and by following the wise counsel of his mother Rebekah. His efforts were to secure these same blessings for his own family, and his last act before he died was to bless his children.
What guided Jacob to God? What made his children so important to the Lord? This statement by Bruce R. McConkie provides additional clarity:
"In general, the Lord sends to earth in the lineage of Jacob [Israel] those spirits who in pre-existence developed an especial talent for spirituality and for recognizing truth. Those born in this lineage, having the blood of Israel in their veins and finding it easy to accept the gospel, are said to have believing blood."Of course, this does not mean that people who are born into the house of Israel are guaranteed to receive divine favor... or even that they will be decent human beings. Israelites produced men as awful as King Ahab and King Manasseh. Even of his own children, Reuben, Levi, Simeon, and Judah were guilty of terrible sins.
What it does mean is that there is a tendency to recognize the divine. There is access to the holy priesthood. There is opportunity to learn the truths of the Lord.
For thousands of years, God has maintained his connection with Israel's children not because they were necessarily better than other people... but because he is showing that true salvation is never only about individuals. Salvation is about permanent bonds with families.
Modern prophets have affirmed this truth:
"Sacred ordinances and covenants available in holy temples make it possible for individuals to return to the presence of God, and for families to be united eternally." (The Family: A Proclamation to the World, emphasis added)
Additionally, Israel will be literally gathered together, and every promise made with the ancient patriarchs will be fulfilled. Christ himself affirmed ancient prophecy when he recited this about the children of Israel:
"Depart ye, depart ye, go ye out from thence, touch not that which is unclean; go ye out of the midst of her; be ye clean that bear the vessels of the Lord. For ye shall not go out with haste nor go by flight; for the Lord will go before you, and the God of Israel shall be your rearward." (3 Nephi 20:41-42)
If you are inspired to get up on Fast Sunday and share your testimony about how important Jesus is... that's fantastic! If you are inspired to talk about how the Lord has blessed you... great! If you want to talk about how the suffering of Christ has brought peace and happiness... Amen!
Just remember... It was never about just you. Though he individually knows you and individually loves you and individually suffered for you... it was never about just you. You are a link in a great chain. You have a part in curses, blessings, and covenants that were made when human civilization was in its infancy. You are connected to those who have gone before, and those who will come after you.
Your potential was never to return to the presence of God all alone... Jesus suffered for you to be united with your spouse, your parents, and your children. He suffered to purchase for you a place in the mansions (plural) of His Father. His commandments were given so that you could "be the children of your Father which is in heaven." (Matthew 5:45) He atoned so that you could be a part of his family.
Jesus suffered for us.
Thursday, September 5, 2013
Don't get your shorts in a knot... Understanding and modesty
Recently, I have seen a lot of heated discussion regarding a blog post called FYI (if you're a teenage girl).
On one hand, there are many individuals that are grateful for encouraging girls to cover themselves, and express understanding for the mother who wrote the post, who desires to help her sons avoid lustful thoughts and urges.
On the other hand, I have read comments from people who are upset with calls for modesty because it blames girls for the impure thoughts of boys, and teaches boys that they just can't help themselves.
The term modesty has become a item of debate as well. Among religious people of many faiths, modesty has represented a method for dressing, particularly for women, such that they minimize any provocative aspects of their appearance. There have been many individuals that have pointed out that this understanding of modesty is a stretch from the root of the word, which implies restraint and humility. The concept in this case is that modesty represents how an individual views himself or herself rather than how others view them.
One side of this debate emphasizes the effect of provocative styles on men. There can be little doubt that seeing women in skimpy outfits affects men... otherwise there would not be a pornography "industry". Lingerie makers, fragrance producers, and other clothing designers also seem to depend on women noticing the effects their products have on men, and implying that the results are tied to ownership of these goods. Anyone who has attended high school knows that men are willing to part with money, invest time, and provide service for girls that catch their attention.
The opposing side points out that women are being held guilty for an effect they may not intend or of which they may not even be aware. It is also plain that men who are guilty of sexual predation cannot be held guiltless if their victims were wearing revealing or otherwise provocative clothing. Men must control their own impulses. Additionally, the concept of being provocative is relative. One person may be aroused by seeing bare shoulders while another remains completely unaffected. If the line is to be drawn such that no one is remotely aroused ever, then should all people be required to wear large burlap cloaks or dress as Benedictine monks?
Of course, on the other hand, sexual harassment lines are already defined by the perception of the victim as opposed to the intent of the perpetrator. An innocent pat on the back or a shoulder rub can be forms of sexual harassment if they are unwelcome. The same can be said of lewd discussions, displaying racy images in the workplace, or the wearing of tight, revealing, and/or otherwise provocative clothing. Individuals that create a hostile and/or uncomfortable work environment for coworkers are directed to alter their appearance, behavior, and/or speech to accommodate the well-being of others, and people generally understand that such laws and policies are appropriate.
The question then becomes this: at what point do these standards become inappropriate? If a behavior is unwelcome or a lack of consent exists, does that make it wrong?
If consent is not important to defining what is acceptable, then by what standard are crimes such as rape condemned?
Certainly, the issue of modesty is difficult, if not impossible, to define explicitly. At the ends of the spectrum, most people agree that exotic dancers may be dressing to be seductive, and nuns are dressing to cover themselves, but middle ground seems shifting. What one believes is modest, another finds provocative. One person can be distracted by something they find revealing while most others find it tasteful and appropriate.
To add to the confusion, individuals on both sides of the argument seem quick to use argumentative language. In response to modesty, one side will use the term shaming. This term calls into question the motives of those that are asking for sensitivity, which ironically, is a form of shaming. On the other side, calling someone a slut for the way they dress is attempting to shame or guilt trip them for failing to conform to standards they may not understand or share. Name calling and questioning the motives assumes the worst about others, and generates most of the unnecessary heat in these debates.
It should not be hard to understand that a person who did not intend to do anything wrong does not want to be made to feel as though they did. It is absolutely hypocritical to be insensitive while trying to get someone else to be more sensitive. It is also hypocritical to try to get someone to feel guilty for requesting sensitivity by accusing them of trying to make others feel guilty.
Ultimately, men, women, and children are better protected from complicated, expensive, and dangerous situations when sexual relations are kept between husband and wife. All people have responsibilities with respect to this. For women, it means being aware of how their appearance affects others. For men, it means getting out of situations that might impair judgment or integrity. For parents, it means protecting their children as possible from influences that might steer them toward irresponsibility. (See The Family: A Proclamation to the World)
Ideally, no one would become defensive or take these discussions personally, and the benefit of the doubt would be given.
If someone tells you that your cleavage is showing, is it possible that they are not intending to make you feel bad, but they are genuinely worried about the effect it has on others, or how it might affect you? What is the right way to tell someone that their appearance is making you feel uncomfortable?
On the other hand, is it possible that a person wearing a tight outfit is unaware of how much of their body shape is visible? Is it possible that a person is not wearing something to try and seduce all the men in the room?
In other words, be sensitive in how you dress and how you treat others.
On one hand, there are many individuals that are grateful for encouraging girls to cover themselves, and express understanding for the mother who wrote the post, who desires to help her sons avoid lustful thoughts and urges.
On the other hand, I have read comments from people who are upset with calls for modesty because it blames girls for the impure thoughts of boys, and teaches boys that they just can't help themselves.
The term modesty has become a item of debate as well. Among religious people of many faiths, modesty has represented a method for dressing, particularly for women, such that they minimize any provocative aspects of their appearance. There have been many individuals that have pointed out that this understanding of modesty is a stretch from the root of the word, which implies restraint and humility. The concept in this case is that modesty represents how an individual views himself or herself rather than how others view them.
One side of this debate emphasizes the effect of provocative styles on men. There can be little doubt that seeing women in skimpy outfits affects men... otherwise there would not be a pornography "industry". Lingerie makers, fragrance producers, and other clothing designers also seem to depend on women noticing the effects their products have on men, and implying that the results are tied to ownership of these goods. Anyone who has attended high school knows that men are willing to part with money, invest time, and provide service for girls that catch their attention.
The opposing side points out that women are being held guilty for an effect they may not intend or of which they may not even be aware. It is also plain that men who are guilty of sexual predation cannot be held guiltless if their victims were wearing revealing or otherwise provocative clothing. Men must control their own impulses. Additionally, the concept of being provocative is relative. One person may be aroused by seeing bare shoulders while another remains completely unaffected. If the line is to be drawn such that no one is remotely aroused ever, then should all people be required to wear large burlap cloaks or dress as Benedictine monks?
Of course, on the other hand, sexual harassment lines are already defined by the perception of the victim as opposed to the intent of the perpetrator. An innocent pat on the back or a shoulder rub can be forms of sexual harassment if they are unwelcome. The same can be said of lewd discussions, displaying racy images in the workplace, or the wearing of tight, revealing, and/or otherwise provocative clothing. Individuals that create a hostile and/or uncomfortable work environment for coworkers are directed to alter their appearance, behavior, and/or speech to accommodate the well-being of others, and people generally understand that such laws and policies are appropriate.
The question then becomes this: at what point do these standards become inappropriate? If a behavior is unwelcome or a lack of consent exists, does that make it wrong?
If consent is not important to defining what is acceptable, then by what standard are crimes such as rape condemned?
Certainly, the issue of modesty is difficult, if not impossible, to define explicitly. At the ends of the spectrum, most people agree that exotic dancers may be dressing to be seductive, and nuns are dressing to cover themselves, but middle ground seems shifting. What one believes is modest, another finds provocative. One person can be distracted by something they find revealing while most others find it tasteful and appropriate.
To add to the confusion, individuals on both sides of the argument seem quick to use argumentative language. In response to modesty, one side will use the term shaming. This term calls into question the motives of those that are asking for sensitivity, which ironically, is a form of shaming. On the other side, calling someone a slut for the way they dress is attempting to shame or guilt trip them for failing to conform to standards they may not understand or share. Name calling and questioning the motives assumes the worst about others, and generates most of the unnecessary heat in these debates.
It should not be hard to understand that a person who did not intend to do anything wrong does not want to be made to feel as though they did. It is absolutely hypocritical to be insensitive while trying to get someone else to be more sensitive. It is also hypocritical to try to get someone to feel guilty for requesting sensitivity by accusing them of trying to make others feel guilty.
Ultimately, men, women, and children are better protected from complicated, expensive, and dangerous situations when sexual relations are kept between husband and wife. All people have responsibilities with respect to this. For women, it means being aware of how their appearance affects others. For men, it means getting out of situations that might impair judgment or integrity. For parents, it means protecting their children as possible from influences that might steer them toward irresponsibility. (See The Family: A Proclamation to the World)
Ideally, no one would become defensive or take these discussions personally, and the benefit of the doubt would be given.
If someone tells you that your cleavage is showing, is it possible that they are not intending to make you feel bad, but they are genuinely worried about the effect it has on others, or how it might affect you? What is the right way to tell someone that their appearance is making you feel uncomfortable?
On the other hand, is it possible that a person wearing a tight outfit is unaware of how much of their body shape is visible? Is it possible that a person is not wearing something to try and seduce all the men in the room?
In other words, be sensitive in how you dress and how you treat others.
Monday, June 3, 2013
Divorce: Portly English monarchs may be bad role models
Jesus was never afraid to say something bold or abrasive if it was important. No doubt, this contributed to the astonishment people experienced when he taught the sermon on the mount. (Matthew 7:28-29)
Even today, many of the concepts he presented can seem difficult to accept. Complete honesty (Matthew 5:33-37), morality in every thought (Matthew 5:28), abstinence from anger (Matthew 5:22), and total forgiveness (Matthew 5:38-45) are among the doctrines that Christ preached. These ideals can take a lifetime of effort to achieve, and for some might even seem impossible.
Of course, not everything in these councils is completely literal. Jesus is not actually suggesting removing one's hand or eye if it is offensive (Matthew 5:29-30). When he declared "judge not that ye be not judged" (Matthew 7:1), he was not suggesting that we make no decisions, or that we not participate in political elections to help elect the leadership we judge to be best. He was not advocating that everyone would be better if they quit their employment and waited for God to feed, clothe, and house us as he does the lilies of the field or the fowls of the air. (Matthew 6:25-34)
Understanding which teachings are literal, rhetorical, or symbolic is a challenge in almost every book of scripture. The changing societal views on issues influence interpretations and emphasis points in Christ's teachings. This is particularly evident with Christ's teachings about divorce.
In the sermon on the mount, Jesus taught:
"It hath been said, Whosoever shall put away his wife, let him give her a writing of divorcement:
Even today, many of the concepts he presented can seem difficult to accept. Complete honesty (Matthew 5:33-37), morality in every thought (Matthew 5:28), abstinence from anger (Matthew 5:22), and total forgiveness (Matthew 5:38-45) are among the doctrines that Christ preached. These ideals can take a lifetime of effort to achieve, and for some might even seem impossible.
Of course, not everything in these councils is completely literal. Jesus is not actually suggesting removing one's hand or eye if it is offensive (Matthew 5:29-30). When he declared "judge not that ye be not judged" (Matthew 7:1), he was not suggesting that we make no decisions, or that we not participate in political elections to help elect the leadership we judge to be best. He was not advocating that everyone would be better if they quit their employment and waited for God to feed, clothe, and house us as he does the lilies of the field or the fowls of the air. (Matthew 6:25-34)
Understanding which teachings are literal, rhetorical, or symbolic is a challenge in almost every book of scripture. The changing societal views on issues influence interpretations and emphasis points in Christ's teachings. This is particularly evident with Christ's teachings about divorce.
In the sermon on the mount, Jesus taught:
"It hath been said, Whosoever shall put away his wife, let him give her a writing of divorcement:
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." (Matthew 5:31-32)
Certainly, I have never met anyone that would argue that divorce is a positive experience, except perhaps attorneys that profit from them. The sentiment of Jesus's teachings though are not just that divorce is bad, but that it is invalid. Christ clearly blames the man that puts away his wife as forcing her into an adulterous situation. He also accuses a man that marries a divorced woman of committing adultery.
This is not a singular teaching either. Christ taught again:
"The Pharisees also came unto him, tempting him, and saying unto him, Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife for every cause? And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female, And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh? Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder. They say unto him, Why did Moses then command to give a writing of divorcement, and to put her away? He saith unto them, 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." (Matthew 19:3-9)
These teachings are undoubtedly tied to the premise held by many Christians that marriage is sacred. The concept that divorce might be acceptable under Christianity may have been derived from Henry VIII of England's "need" to get a divorce. The "Defender of the Faith" was quick to cast his faith aside when it suited him. Since this time, the practice has become more and more widespread, even to the point that many believe marriage is just a legal status rather than an institution of sanctity... a more formal form of "boyfriend and girlfriend" that can be terminated by either party at any time on a whim.
While the condemnation of divorce is clear, it is important to highlight that Christ did include an exception in his statement about divorce: "saving for the cause of fornication." This obviously implies that there are instances where divorce may be not only be acceptable, but perhaps the right course of action.
It should not be surprising that infidelity is condemned... particularly when Jesus taught that marriage represents something that "God hath joined together", a violation of the marriage commitment definitely constitutes man putting it asunder. I would suggest that situations where abuse of spouse or offspring have occurred are also breaches in the marriage covenant, and for the safety of the victims, divorce may be necessary.
In such cases when an individual has betrayed their marriage vows, and divorce has been the result... do Christ's teachings indicate that such individuals should not re-marry? I do not believe that this is the intent of the phrase "whosoever shall marry her that is divorced committeth adultery." I believe that such teachings are directed at those who legally remove themselves from their marriage commitments over trivial circumstances or "irreconcilable differences."
A disagreement, lack of excitement, different life goals, or similar excuses are not likely to be acceptable to God as reasons to cast marriage aside. This is particularly true of Christians who have committed to be humble, merciful, forgiving, and selfless as a part of their commitment to Christ himself.
Certainly any one of us are guilty of being foolish at times. Every one of us have likely at some point acted petty, cruel, selfish, jealous, spiteful, or in some way done something to deserve being put away... but Christ personally suffered unspeakable torture and pain for each of us anyway. In fact, regardless of our problems or mistakes (the very cause of his torture), he continually and selflessly offers forgiveness to us.
A person that cannot bend to offer love and respect to the person they swore they would in the covenant of marriage cannot expect love and respect from God... and a person that sets at naught their most sacred relationships for trivialities should not expect God to invest in forming relationships with them.
Frequently and tragically, the effects of divorce extend beyond the separating couple... particularly when there are children involved. Remember the teaching of Jesus regarding children:
"And said, Verily I say unto you, Except ye be converted, and become as little children, ye shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven. Whosoever therefore shall humble himself as this little child, the same is greatest in the kingdom of heaven. And whoso shall receive one such little child in my name receiveth me. But whoso shall offend one of these little ones which believe in me, it were better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and that he were drowned in the depth of the sea." (Matthew 18:3-6)
From the teachings of modern prophets:
"Children are entitled to birth within the bonds of matrimony, and to be reared by a father and a mother who honor marital vows with complete fidelity... We warn that individuals who violate covenants of chastity, who abuse spouse or offspring, or who fail to fulfill family responsibilities will one day stand accountable before God. Further, we warn that the disintegration of the family will bring upon individuals, communities, and nations the calamities foretold by ancient and modern prophets." (http://www.lds.org/topics/family-proclamation?lang=eng)
Of course there are circumstances such as death or disability that may require special attention. These circumstances ought to be the exception and not the rule however. As much as possible, we have a responsibility to ensure that children receive care under a father and mother who honor their vows completely. Casting aside a spouse for anything but the most serious offenses constitutes a violation of the rights of children. Even in the best circumstances divorce can cause harm to come to the little ones... in other words, children are hurt by the very parents on whom they should be able to depend for protection.
Ultimately, marriage was never intended to be trivial. The sanctity of this institution is not lessened by the indulgence of society's "tolerance" for selfish practices. Particularly among Christians who believe in the sanctity of marriage, it is vital that we practice what we preach. While we have a responsibility to be kind and loving to all of God's children, there is no relationship more important in which to prove our Christianity than that between husband and wife.
This is not a singular teaching either. Christ taught again:
"The Pharisees also came unto him, tempting him, and saying unto him, Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife for every cause? And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female, And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh? Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder. They say unto him, Why did Moses then command to give a writing of divorcement, and to put her away? He saith unto them, 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." (Matthew 19:3-9)
These teachings are undoubtedly tied to the premise held by many Christians that marriage is sacred. The concept that divorce might be acceptable under Christianity may have been derived from Henry VIII of England's "need" to get a divorce. The "Defender of the Faith" was quick to cast his faith aside when it suited him. Since this time, the practice has become more and more widespread, even to the point that many believe marriage is just a legal status rather than an institution of sanctity... a more formal form of "boyfriend and girlfriend" that can be terminated by either party at any time on a whim.
While the condemnation of divorce is clear, it is important to highlight that Christ did include an exception in his statement about divorce: "saving for the cause of fornication." This obviously implies that there are instances where divorce may be not only be acceptable, but perhaps the right course of action.
It should not be surprising that infidelity is condemned... particularly when Jesus taught that marriage represents something that "God hath joined together", a violation of the marriage commitment definitely constitutes man putting it asunder. I would suggest that situations where abuse of spouse or offspring have occurred are also breaches in the marriage covenant, and for the safety of the victims, divorce may be necessary.
In such cases when an individual has betrayed their marriage vows, and divorce has been the result... do Christ's teachings indicate that such individuals should not re-marry? I do not believe that this is the intent of the phrase "whosoever shall marry her that is divorced committeth adultery." I believe that such teachings are directed at those who legally remove themselves from their marriage commitments over trivial circumstances or "irreconcilable differences."
A disagreement, lack of excitement, different life goals, or similar excuses are not likely to be acceptable to God as reasons to cast marriage aside. This is particularly true of Christians who have committed to be humble, merciful, forgiving, and selfless as a part of their commitment to Christ himself.
Certainly any one of us are guilty of being foolish at times. Every one of us have likely at some point acted petty, cruel, selfish, jealous, spiteful, or in some way done something to deserve being put away... but Christ personally suffered unspeakable torture and pain for each of us anyway. In fact, regardless of our problems or mistakes (the very cause of his torture), he continually and selflessly offers forgiveness to us.
A person that cannot bend to offer love and respect to the person they swore they would in the covenant of marriage cannot expect love and respect from God... and a person that sets at naught their most sacred relationships for trivialities should not expect God to invest in forming relationships with them.
Frequently and tragically, the effects of divorce extend beyond the separating couple... particularly when there are children involved. Remember the teaching of Jesus regarding children:
"And said, Verily I say unto you, Except ye be converted, and become as little children, ye shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven. Whosoever therefore shall humble himself as this little child, the same is greatest in the kingdom of heaven. And whoso shall receive one such little child in my name receiveth me. But whoso shall offend one of these little ones which believe in me, it were better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and that he were drowned in the depth of the sea." (Matthew 18:3-6)
From the teachings of modern prophets:
"Children are entitled to birth within the bonds of matrimony, and to be reared by a father and a mother who honor marital vows with complete fidelity... We warn that individuals who violate covenants of chastity, who abuse spouse or offspring, or who fail to fulfill family responsibilities will one day stand accountable before God. Further, we warn that the disintegration of the family will bring upon individuals, communities, and nations the calamities foretold by ancient and modern prophets." (http://www.lds.org/topics/family-proclamation?lang=eng)
Of course there are circumstances such as death or disability that may require special attention. These circumstances ought to be the exception and not the rule however. As much as possible, we have a responsibility to ensure that children receive care under a father and mother who honor their vows completely. Casting aside a spouse for anything but the most serious offenses constitutes a violation of the rights of children. Even in the best circumstances divorce can cause harm to come to the little ones... in other words, children are hurt by the very parents on whom they should be able to depend for protection.
Ultimately, marriage was never intended to be trivial. The sanctity of this institution is not lessened by the indulgence of society's "tolerance" for selfish practices. Particularly among Christians who believe in the sanctity of marriage, it is vital that we practice what we preach. While we have a responsibility to be kind and loving to all of God's children, there is no relationship more important in which to prove our Christianity than that between husband and wife.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)