This week, our Come Follow Me curriculum brings us to Genesis 24-27. We look at matchmaking for Isaac, and a single birthright for twins Jacob and Esau. Study with me!
Anchor.fm:
Soundcloud:
Youtube:
Showing posts with label #marriage. Show all posts
Showing posts with label #marriage. Show all posts
Sunday, February 20, 2022
Sunday, November 7, 2021
Ward Preacher Podcast Ep 150 - Eternal Marriage(s)
This week, our Come Follow Me curriculum brings us to D&C 129-132. We discuss teachings of Joseph Smith, polygamy, and eternal marriage. Study with me!
Anchor.fm:
Soundcloud:
Youtube:
Sunday, March 8, 2020
Ward Preacher Podcast Ep 63 - Why Prophets Care So Much About Marriage
This week's Come Follow Me curriculum is in Jacob 1-4. We discuss whether prophets can be punished for the sins of the people, and why leaders care so much about marriage and chastity. Study with me!
Anchor.fm:
https://anchor.fm/brett-jensen/episodes/Why-Prophets-Care-So-Much-About-Marriage-ebbu93
Soundcloud:
https://soundcloud.com/user-961318159/ward-preacher-podcast-ep-63-why-prophets-care-so-much-about-marriage
Youtube:
Anchor.fm:
https://anchor.fm/brett-jensen/episodes/Why-Prophets-Care-So-Much-About-Marriage-ebbu93
Soundcloud:
https://soundcloud.com/user-961318159/ward-preacher-podcast-ep-63-why-prophets-care-so-much-about-marriage
Youtube:
Sunday, October 6, 2019
Ward Preacher Podcast Ep 41 - Why the Bible Tells Wives to Submit to their Husbands
This week in Come Follow Me, we wrap up Ephesians. We discuss coming to a unity of the faith, why Paul told wives to submit to their husbands, and the armor of God. Study with me!
Soundcloud:
https://soundcloud.com/user-961318159/ward-preacher-podcast-ep-41-why-the-bible-tells-wives-to-submit-to-their-husbands
Youtube:
Soundcloud:
https://soundcloud.com/user-961318159/ward-preacher-podcast-ep-41-why-the-bible-tells-wives-to-submit-to-their-husbands
Youtube:
Sunday, August 18, 2019
Ward Preacher Podcast Ep 34 - Paul said what about marriage?!
This week the Come Follow Me curriculum brings us to 1 Corinthians 1-7. Paul teaches some important truths about contention, about the divine nature of our bodies... and then gives some surprising counsel about marriage. Study with me!
Soundcloud:
https://soundcloud.com/user-961318159/ward-preacher-podcast-ep-34-paul-said-what-about-marriage
Youtube:
Soundcloud:
https://soundcloud.com/user-961318159/ward-preacher-podcast-ep-34-paul-said-what-about-marriage
Youtube:
Sunday, May 12, 2019
Ward Preacher Podcast Ep 020 - You've got a good deal!
This week's Come Follow Me curriculum covers Matthew 19-20, Mark 10, and Luke 18. We emphasize camels going through the eye of a needle, the parable of the laborers, and the teachings of Jesus about marriage. Study with me!
Soundcloud:
https://soundcloud.com/user-961318159/ward-preacher-ep-020-youve-got-a-good-deal
Youtube:
Soundcloud:
https://soundcloud.com/user-961318159/ward-preacher-ep-020-youve-got-a-good-deal
Youtube:
Saturday, June 27, 2015
What Type of Marriage Discrimination Will Gay Marriage Advocates Continue To Support?
I have seen many rainbow picture profiles on Facebook and many "love wins" sentiments after the 5-4 ruling by the United States Supreme Court in which they used the 14th amendment to discover a "right to marry." There are numerous legal reasons why this move represents a dangerous precedent, and how wrong it is for justices to find "implied rights" are more important that explicitly stated rights (such as in the 10th amendment). For those that have interest in the legal side of this (or those who claim that defense of traditional marriage is indefensible), reading the dissents of the four justices who did not support this finding is illuminating.
I am not going to repeat the legal reasons that this supreme court ruling was bad. I want to focus on something more emotional, and far more common.
It is no secret that I have vehemently opposed gay marriage. In response to the points that I have made, I have been told the following:
I am not going to repeat the legal reasons that this supreme court ruling was bad. I want to focus on something more emotional, and far more common.
It is no secret that I have vehemently opposed gay marriage. In response to the points that I have made, I have been told the following:
- That I "probably don't have a lot of gay friends"
- That I have a phobia of homosexuals
- That I am a bigot
- That I am hateful
- That I don't understand the Bible
- That God just wants people to love each other (and that sin does not exist)
- That I might be gay myself if I am "threatened"
- That I am fighting against "civil" or "human" rights
- That I am encouraging (or even inciting) violence
- That I am being judgmental, and therefore will burn in hell
The list is not comprehensive, but it never ceases to amaze me how many accusations are made about any person who believes in traditional marriage.
Now that the Supreme Court has ruled that individuals have a right to be married, the question I have for gay marriage advocates is whether they plan to extend these rights to everyone. (This is a rhetorical question, I don't want you to tell me about it, I want you to actually open your mind to the consequences of "love" "winning.")
Take for example the polygamous group. (Now before you say that this is a straw man argument, and no one is advocating for it, read this article) So if seven people decide that they are in "love", how can a person say that they should be denied the right to marry? Obviously not because we adhere to a standard of traditional marriage. If you are opposed to polygamy, let me suggest the following reasons:
- That you "probably don't have a lot of polygamous friends"
- That you have a phobia of polygamists
- That you are a bigot
- That you are hateful
- That you don't understand the Bible
- That God just wants people to love each other (and that sin does not exist)
- That you might have polygamous desires yourself if you are"threatened"
- That you are fighting against "civil" or "human" rights
- That you are encouraging (or even inciting) violence
- That you are being judgmental, and therefore will burn in hell
Take for example the biological brother and sister that have fallen in love, but that the state will not issue a marriage license because they are related. If marriage is a right, then who are you to say that being related should deprive a person of this right? If you still disagree that incestuous relationships should be able to have legal recognition in the form of marriage, may I suggest the following reasons that you believe this:
- That you "probably don't have a lot of incestuous friends"
- That you have a phobia of incest
- That you are a bigot
- That you are hateful
- That you don't understand the Bible
- That God just wants people to love each other (and that sin does not exist)
- That you might have incestuous desires yourself if you are"threatened"
- That you are fighting against "civil" or "human" rights
- That you are encouraging (or even inciting) violence
- That you are being judgmental, and therefore will burn in hell
Take for example the man that has fallen in love with his pet dog. They would like to make their love officially recognized in the form of marriage. Who are you to say that the dog doesn't love its owner. I have spoken to many vegetarians who insist that animals have all the same feelings that humans have, and that the most important of those feelings is love. Who are you to say that this type of relationship is "not natural." For thousands of years the majority of civilization believed the exact same thing about homosexuality (and many still do.) Just because Leviticus 18:23 says "Neither shalt thou lie with any beast to defile thyself therewith: neither shall any woman stand before a beast to lie down thereto: it is confusion" doesn't mean anything. After all, the Bible also forbids eating pork or women speaking in church, so you can't accept everything in the Bible... right? Certainly this form of "love" may not be traditional, but the man has a right to be married, and if you try to discriminate against the form of his love, it can only be because:
- That you "probably don't have a lot of animal-loving friends"
- That you have a phobia of human-animal relationships
- That you are a bigot
- That you are hateful
- That you don't understand the Bible
- That God just wants people to love each other (and that sin does not exist)
- That you might have bestiality desires yourself if you are"threatened"
- That you are fighting against "civil" or "human" rights
- That you are encouraging (or even inciting) violence
- That you are being judgmental, and therefore will burn in hell
Take for example the forty-year-old man that has fallen in love with a twelve-year-old boy. The boy says that he is happy with the man, and who are you to say their relationship is taboo? Of course, the boy may not be an adult, to which traditional marriage relationships typically are limited, but tradition is not the basis for love anymore, right? It's only love. Nothing else matters, right? And who are you to say that the boy is not capable of being in love? If young people are not capable of love, then are you advocating banning relationships in high school between students who are under the age of eighteen? No more "cutest couple" in the year book, right? Your "girlfriend" or "boyfriend" is not allowed. There are no gay teens, right, since they are too young to understand or participate in sexual activities, right? Or perhaps you truly believe that "love" should win? Perhaps the pedophile is just another "non-traditional" relationship that has been negatively stereotyped by society. No? Then perhaps you say this because:
- That you "probably don't have a lot of pedophile friends"
- That you have a phobia of pedophilia
- That you are a bigot
- That you are hateful
- That you don't understand the Bible
- That God just wants people to love each other (and that sin does not exist)
- That you might have pedophilia desires yourself if you are"threatened"
- That you are fighting against "civil" or "human" rights
- That you are encouraging (or even inciting) violence
- That you are being judgmental, and therefore will burn in hell
If you are a gay marriage advocate, you may be tempted to let me know about how these ideas are totally different than those of gay marriage. You may be tempted to shout "slippery slope" or "no one is going to advocate that" or "straw man" or whatever else makes you feel better about the fact that you believe (as I do) that there should be some discrimination in who we permit to marry. Please, before you begin sending me messages about how awful a human being I am... consider for just a moment that perhaps gay marriage advocates are not so very different from the traditionalists, cake bakers, and people of faith that many of them tend to demonize.
If the reasons for why you might be opposed to bestiality, pedophilia, incest, and other unnatural relationships are not accurately represented by the bullet point lists... then consider for a moment the possibility that the reason I am opposed to homosexual marriage may not be accurately represented by these things either.
Additionally, if you have thrown "traditional marriage" out the window as a valid reason to discriminate against other unorthodox types of unions, consider for a moment the actual reasons that you are opposed to them. Examine why you believe that some types of unions are not good, and should not be condoned by society.
It is my earnest hope that perhaps, in the moment when you struggle to define why it is OK to discriminate against some marriages, that you will see that advocates of traditional marriage are not the demons they are painted to be.
Monday, July 15, 2013
"...on my mission..." - why women should avoid using the mating call of 21 year old Mormon men...
Every young man in the LDS church knows there is an expectation... a commandment even... to prepare and serve a two-year mission. Church leaders frequently explain how important it is to share the gospel with everyone, and how substantial the opportunities are for learning and gaining experience through missionary service.
In some areas, the importance of this service translated into grand and glorious farewells and homecomings to honor those that had given such service. Such displays certainly contribute to generating interest in missionary service, but not always in positive ways.
Additionally, leaders of LDS young women frequently encourage the attitude that they ought to seek out a spouse that is a returned missionary. Nearly every time a young woman in LDS meetings or activities described the qualities and accomplishments of their "ideal" husband, returned missionary was among them.
For all the difficulties that men may have when it comes to listening, this fact is known by all men that serve as missionaries. When these young men return home, particularly those with limited dating abilities will fall back to this memory, and any conversation in which they participate will recall a story or experience from their mission that will allow them to spread the word that they are a returned missionary.
In some cases, these efforts can help make girls that would otherwise been unavailable open enough to present a dating opportunity. In cases where the area is already saturated with returned missionaries, the value of completing such service, while still something, is substantially less valuable to women.
At some point after missionary service, whether successful or not in using the "on my mission" mating call, men tend to realize that the glorious return where people lined up to shake their hand is fleeting, and it is important to build new experiences and accomplishments in employment, education, and religious service, just like everyone else.
While young men are told in the form of a commandment that they should prepare and serve a mission, young women are offered this service opportunity as an option. For some of these sisters, missionary service becomes appealing only when there are no imminent marriage prospects, while for others, it is appealing regardless. Sisters from both of these categories can achieve success in missionary efforts.
When service concludes for sister missionaries, many of them seem to fall into the same pattern as returned Elders. Every conversation and every comment they offer in church includes the male mating call "...on my mission..." along with some anecdote or experience.
Of course, almost no men have "returned missionary" on their list of required achievements and accomplishments when seeking a wife. Additionally, since numerous men in the LDS church have served missions, they know that missionary service does not guarantee that a person is kind, honest, intelligent, or even that they have good communication skills. Returned missionaries know that they themselves, regardless of their intentions, made numerous mistakes.
Additionally, most men do not look for a woman that has a good resume or an impressive list of accomplishments. They want someone that is attractive and will agree with them about things they will not compromise (such as religious truths, political views, whether it's ok to eat steak, and the belief that investing some time in the Legend of Zelda is a good thing). Missionary experience does not make a woman more appealing. If women intend it as a mating call of their own, it is a poor choice.
For some people, the phrase "...on my mission..." causes negative feelings. Although missionary service is an option for women, those that persist in relating everything to an experience they had on their mission can cause women who made choices beside full-time missionary service to feel regret, guilt, or inferiority. Particularly for women who were married and started families, there are already enough voices in society telling them that motherhood is not as valuable as careers or other accomplishments... Members of the church ought to avoid guilt tripping women for making correct choices.
Some might respond to this assertion by asking why it would be acceptable for men to talk about their missions and not women. I suggest that men also need to temper the degree with which they use "...on my mission..." Of course since there are so many LDS single women who are determined to marry a returned missionary, a single man may feel the need to communicate that they meet this requirement. That having been said, people ought to see it for what it is: a mating call... and all mating calls are meant to be declarations of superiority.
In other words, a person that says "...on my mission, I [accomplished feat]..." is really saying "consider me to be a superior choice for romantic commitment because I [served a mission]..." Even if the return missionary is female, anyone that frequently refers to their mission comes off as though they are claiming superiority to those who have not served a mission, regardless of whether or not they intend to.
Please do not misunderstand to think that the point of this article is to treat missionary service as a skeleton in the closet. The experiences of missionary service can be remembered, enjoyed, and shared... The point is that these experiences do not make a person superior to another who does not have them. Many times, relating a story about an experience during missionary service can convey the desired point without pontificating about the fact that it may have occurred during missionary service.
Instead of "on my mission, I talked to a person who..." why not say "I once talked to a person who..."? Is it necessary to announce to everyone (especially in an Elders Quorum or Relief Society meeting) that you served a mission? And if you are married, who exactly are you trying to impress by touting your accomplishments?
Ultimately, almost every full time missionary comes to the conclusion that the decisions they made as a 19-21 year old may not always have been the right ones... and that while a full-time mission can offer tremendous opportunity to learn and improve... ultimately, we are all beggars before God (Mosiah 4:19).
A mission should probably not be used as a trumpet announcing good deeds (Matthew 6:2)... and a person's good deeds should not be limited to a time when they served a full time mission. In the end, no amount of accomplishment will hold a candle to the triumph of our Lord Jesus Christ over sin and death... and that is the accomplishment of which all Christians should be most anxious to share.
In some areas, the importance of this service translated into grand and glorious farewells and homecomings to honor those that had given such service. Such displays certainly contribute to generating interest in missionary service, but not always in positive ways.
Additionally, leaders of LDS young women frequently encourage the attitude that they ought to seek out a spouse that is a returned missionary. Nearly every time a young woman in LDS meetings or activities described the qualities and accomplishments of their "ideal" husband, returned missionary was among them.
For all the difficulties that men may have when it comes to listening, this fact is known by all men that serve as missionaries. When these young men return home, particularly those with limited dating abilities will fall back to this memory, and any conversation in which they participate will recall a story or experience from their mission that will allow them to spread the word that they are a returned missionary.
In some cases, these efforts can help make girls that would otherwise been unavailable open enough to present a dating opportunity. In cases where the area is already saturated with returned missionaries, the value of completing such service, while still something, is substantially less valuable to women.
At some point after missionary service, whether successful or not in using the "on my mission" mating call, men tend to realize that the glorious return where people lined up to shake their hand is fleeting, and it is important to build new experiences and accomplishments in employment, education, and religious service, just like everyone else.
While young men are told in the form of a commandment that they should prepare and serve a mission, young women are offered this service opportunity as an option. For some of these sisters, missionary service becomes appealing only when there are no imminent marriage prospects, while for others, it is appealing regardless. Sisters from both of these categories can achieve success in missionary efforts.
When service concludes for sister missionaries, many of them seem to fall into the same pattern as returned Elders. Every conversation and every comment they offer in church includes the male mating call "...on my mission..." along with some anecdote or experience.
Of course, almost no men have "returned missionary" on their list of required achievements and accomplishments when seeking a wife. Additionally, since numerous men in the LDS church have served missions, they know that missionary service does not guarantee that a person is kind, honest, intelligent, or even that they have good communication skills. Returned missionaries know that they themselves, regardless of their intentions, made numerous mistakes.
Additionally, most men do not look for a woman that has a good resume or an impressive list of accomplishments. They want someone that is attractive and will agree with them about things they will not compromise (such as religious truths, political views, whether it's ok to eat steak, and the belief that investing some time in the Legend of Zelda is a good thing). Missionary experience does not make a woman more appealing. If women intend it as a mating call of their own, it is a poor choice.
For some people, the phrase "...on my mission..." causes negative feelings. Although missionary service is an option for women, those that persist in relating everything to an experience they had on their mission can cause women who made choices beside full-time missionary service to feel regret, guilt, or inferiority. Particularly for women who were married and started families, there are already enough voices in society telling them that motherhood is not as valuable as careers or other accomplishments... Members of the church ought to avoid guilt tripping women for making correct choices.
Some might respond to this assertion by asking why it would be acceptable for men to talk about their missions and not women. I suggest that men also need to temper the degree with which they use "...on my mission..." Of course since there are so many LDS single women who are determined to marry a returned missionary, a single man may feel the need to communicate that they meet this requirement. That having been said, people ought to see it for what it is: a mating call... and all mating calls are meant to be declarations of superiority.
In other words, a person that says "...on my mission, I [accomplished feat]..." is really saying "consider me to be a superior choice for romantic commitment because I [served a mission]..." Even if the return missionary is female, anyone that frequently refers to their mission comes off as though they are claiming superiority to those who have not served a mission, regardless of whether or not they intend to.
Please do not misunderstand to think that the point of this article is to treat missionary service as a skeleton in the closet. The experiences of missionary service can be remembered, enjoyed, and shared... The point is that these experiences do not make a person superior to another who does not have them. Many times, relating a story about an experience during missionary service can convey the desired point without pontificating about the fact that it may have occurred during missionary service.
Instead of "on my mission, I talked to a person who..." why not say "I once talked to a person who..."? Is it necessary to announce to everyone (especially in an Elders Quorum or Relief Society meeting) that you served a mission? And if you are married, who exactly are you trying to impress by touting your accomplishments?
Ultimately, almost every full time missionary comes to the conclusion that the decisions they made as a 19-21 year old may not always have been the right ones... and that while a full-time mission can offer tremendous opportunity to learn and improve... ultimately, we are all beggars before God (Mosiah 4:19).
A mission should probably not be used as a trumpet announcing good deeds (Matthew 6:2)... and a person's good deeds should not be limited to a time when they served a full time mission. In the end, no amount of accomplishment will hold a candle to the triumph of our Lord Jesus Christ over sin and death... and that is the accomplishment of which all Christians should be most anxious to share.
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)