tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3880654315943365046.post4607831657065286635..comments2023-05-18T08:46:59.064-06:00Comments on from the desk of Denver Snuffer: D & C 132, part 4Denver Snufferhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13850530477432070456noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3880654315943365046.post-41757811727016792622010-08-14T15:08:24.063-06:002010-08-14T15:08:24.063-06:00In response to the Anonymous's post above,
If...In response to the Anonymous's post above,<br /><br />If you study the teachings of our last Prophets, Hinckley, Benson, Kimball, Smith, etc., etc. you find overwhelming evidence that the Church has clearly not changed it's stance on Divorce. Though they have become quieter about it since so many are ignoring their counsel & divorcing. It would create too much controversy to speak the real truth today.<br /><br />But our modern Prophets still say UNjustified Divorce & remarriage is adultery & one of the worst sins a man can commit. They do acknowledge that there may be some rare cases of justified divorce that would then not be adultery. But they let the members themselves decide & declare whether they were justified or not & are still worthy of temple blessings. If a member says they are worthy & justified then the leaders just allow them in the temple. <br /><br />Thus it can seem like divorce is ok today, since so many seem to be getting away with it & leaders just let them in the temple. But church leaders just go by what the person says & don't usually ask many questions.<br /><br />But we are still very much obligated to live the higher law. We all know that God does not allow us to just dump & destroy our good spouse & children & go find someone new that we think we will be happier with, whenever we want to, without dire eternal punishment.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3880654315943365046.post-85881862024051143192010-04-09T09:13:05.972-06:002010-04-09T09:13:05.972-06:00Dear Denver, I appreciate your being willing to a...Dear Denver, I appreciate your being willing to address this extremely difficult subject. Part 4 helps some, but part of part 4 isn't making sense to me yet. I'm not meaning that I can't figure out polygamy and the commandment yet -- I think you're doing a fabulous job on clarifying that. I just can't figure out how verses 41-44 fit with what you said in the beginning of part 4. The Lord's description of adultery in those verses sounds like anyone is committing it who is "being with another" that they are not sealed to. Thus, I can't see how being married to one man for time while sealed to another could be cutting it in light of what those verses say. Help? <br /><br />Also, maybe not until you're done with Section 132, but at some point, could you please address the variance between what the Savior said about adultery after divorce and what the Church is doing/allowing today. (I'm divorced and have been remarried, but it's still a question in my mind because it's bothersome to me that we are living a lesser law when we know what the Savior said about it.)<br /><br />Matt. 19: 9<br /> 9 And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery.<br /><br />Mark 10: 11-12<br /> 11 And he saith unto them, Whosoever shall put away his wife, and marry another, committeth adultery against her.<br /> 12 And if a woman shall put away her husband, and be married to another, she committeth adultery.<br /><br /> I realize that we believe in "modern revelation", and maybe the whole answer is that the Lord has revealed that it is OK to allow divorce and remarriage because we are not ready to live a higher law -- like what the Savior said about divorce at the time of Moses: <br /><br />Matt. 19: 8<br /> 8 He saith unto them, Moses because of the hardness of your hearts suffered you to put away your bwives: but from the beginning it was not so.<br /><br />But in the Dispensation of the Fullness of Times, shouldn't we living whatever the law really is that "was from the beginning"?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com