Can Jesus' moral principals taught by him be diluted

[Samuel the Lamanite]

We have had several threads about the growing divorce rate within the Mormon Church, especially Temple Sealings. Why is this happening? Certainly the world has morally deterioted badly which can't help having some influence especially with pornography.

On another thread, I suggested that we (1) didn't drill down enough in our Temple Recommend interviews allowing the Gift of Dicernmane to be real effective and (2) there seems to be social pressure at play to make sure a marriage is ONLY done in the Temple. To not be married in the Temple is a "social sin" and "embarrasing" for the parents. Imagine being a Bishop or SP with that type of pressure on him.

When Jesus taught on His earthly mission, He said that the only reason in HIS eyes at least that anyone can divorce is for adultery. If divorce is for any other reason and either party remarries, then they are living in adultery. Granted, That is a high standand but it's Jesus' commandment. The D+C says that one can be forgiven by the Church once for adultery but after that EXed.

Today in the Church, there are many reasons "allowed" for divorce. Certainly Bablyon has made laws to make divorce easier... no fault divorce for instance has been directly correlated with the increase in the number of divorces. It seems to me that the Church rules for divorce have been badly diluted from those given by Jesus. And those divorced because of mulitple adultery can once again after a few years be sealed in the Temple. Certainly people can repent. But, this also happens with Temple Sealings "broken" for other reasons than adultery. A few years later the parties find another mate and are sealed in the Temple.

IMO, this is a MAJOR thrid reason while divorce rates are increasing in the Church. "Try it you'lll like it but IF it doesn't work out, get a divorce and after a few years you find another mate and get sealed."

The big generic question is this: "Can anyone dilute the commandments of Jesus in any area?" When Jesus was alive, He did the very opposite: He increased His commandment making them more concerned with the spiritual: letter of the law vs spirit of the law. One example? If a man looks upon a woman with lust, he has already committed adultery in his heart.

What say ye?

[Amore Vero]

That was a wonderful post Samuel, thank you. I believe you hit upon many vital points, ones' you know I also find concerning.

As to your question "Can Jesus' moral principles taught by him be diluted", I believe no.

It is impossible for anyone on earth to ever righteously dilute or change Christ's teachings. They stand for all time & can never be taken away again or diminished. Christ's high laws are the laws of the Celestial Kingdom & if we want to be worthy of that kingdom, we must live his high laws.

No one can live a lesser or Terrestrial law & still earn the Celestial Kingdom, even if Celestial laws are not preached anymore & lesser laws are.

Joseph Smith taught that we can tell 'true revelation or teaching' by judging it against what the scriptures say. If a person or leader teaches anything different or contrary to what the Book of Mormon & D&C teach (1844 versions), & Bible too to a lesser extent, for it contains many more errors) then we can know for sure that what they teach is false.

I believe that Joseph Smith & the scriptures he provided us with (BoM & D&C) are our guide for judging all revelation, either our own or anyone else's, forever more.

Not even Prophets can change doctrine, but they must also always agree with what the scriptures say or Joseph Smith said that is how we detect their error. For all truth is harmonious with itself & never contradicts itself.

"Jesus retorts that it is 'not' the privilege but the infamy (loss of character, notoriously bad & scandalous qualities, public disgrace) & reproach (shame, disgrace, censure mingled with contempt) of Israel, that Moses found it necessary to tolerate divorce, (or the people would have done worse things to their spouses if they couldn't leave them).
"I say, therefore, that whoever puts away his wife, except for fornication, which destroys the very essence of marriage by dissolving the oneness it had formed, & shall marry another, commits adultery; & whoever marries her who is put away for any other cause commits adultery, because the woman is still, in God's sight, wife of him who had divorced her."
This statement... was designed to set forth 'for all ages' the law of His new Kingdom in the supreme matter of family life.
It swept away forever from His society the conception of woman as a mere toy or slave of man, & based true relations of the sexes on the eternal foundation of truth, right, honor & love.
To ennoble the House & the Family by raising woman to her true position was essential to the future stability of His Kingdom, as one of purity & spiritual worth.
By making marriage indissoluble (incapable of dissolution or separation) He proclaimed the equal rights of women & man within the limits of the family."
James E. Talmage, Jesus the Christ, p. 484. (My comments in brackets)

"No judge in this world in any court of the land can annul a marriage for time & all eternity. He may separate the husband & wife by legal enactments so far as this world is concerned, but he cannot separate that husband & wife so far as the next world is concerned. When the man & his wife 'lose their faith' (love) & go to the courts & get a separation, & then go out & marry according to the laws of the land, they are not culpable (guilty) before the law of the land, but they are before the kingdom of God & what the Savior says here in this revelation is 'absolutely true' : "Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, & shall marry another, committeth adultery, & whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery."
Matt. 19:9, Joseph Fielding Smith, CR Apr. 1961.

[TSMITH]

I know this is not in direct response to your question, but I have seen the reference to adultery as being the only reason Jesus gave for allowable divorce and wanted to mention this.

In Matt 5:32 it actually states that the only acceptable reason is "fornication" NOT adultery, although that would be the correct term if a married person were to enter into sexual relations with another person. I guess this could be a translation error, but that seems odd as the word "adultery" does come into play only five words later. If we translate it correctly once, why not the second time (or conversely if we mis-translate it once, why not the second time [or the third time-- when the word adultery shows up again in the end of the verse])?

I don't know of any official position by the church or statements by apostles/prophets, but I wonder if the implication here is not simply adultery. What if the reason is a complete abandonment of the marital covenant? A type of infidelity much greater than simply adultery, although certainly adultery could be covered under this reading as well. I don't know and I'm not making any special claims of knowledge. Heck, as far as I know this topic has appeared on here before and I am just too new to have seen that discussion, but it's something that I have thought/wondered about for awhile and thought I would throw it out here and see what the consensus was.

Thanks for reading.

BTW, IMO the simple answer to the question of this post is yes. I think that is what Satan does a lot of-- giving a grain of truth with a spoonful of untruth. The most damaging lies of Satan seem to be those that are not outright lies, but some form of true teaching simply modified or diluted a bit.

[SpeedRacer]

Amore, are you saying the official declarations that stand in opposition to what Brother Joseph taught should not be in the D&C?

We have modern day revelation so we know what God wants for us today. Matthew 5:32 has been explained and the teachings therein have very specific meaning in the Jewish customs. We have been corrected that not all divorced women that remarry are adulterers. To think that a woman who was deceived by an unrighteous man into a marriage only to be abused has to enure it for fear of being condemned is not harmonious with the spirit of what was taught by Christ. Frivolous divorce is not either, and I think that is the point.

Can Jesus' principles be diluted? I don't think that an explanation from Jesus to one of his holy apostles then relayed to us in General Conference is a dilution.

If someone else does it, it is probably a justification for sin, and not really dillution.

[Samuel the Lamanite]

T: I've NOT seen any of your posts before. Thanks for jumping in on this thread. I hope to see many more great posts in the future.

[Samuel the Lamanite]

Speed: Help me understand the difference in your mind for dilution vs juastification for sin. Thanks.

[SpeedRacer]

Speed: Help me understand the difference in your mind for dilution vs juastification for sin. Thanks.

Dilution in my mind would come from the giver. Justification for sin would be from the sinner, and I think you could classify it as dilution.

Dilution of a mixture would just to mean adding more water making it less potent, or have less of an effect. If you diluted a commandment or principle it would be weird. Like Blessed are the peacemakers. Blessed are the people who try to be peacemakers, but send us to war on occasion. That is weird. Thou shalt not commit adultery, unless you are really being cut-off and you are very attracted to the other person. It just doesn't work. The impact is less though. Those are all justifications to me. Can you give me an example of dilution?

I mean tithing means a tenth. Paying 8% because it was a tough month is not tithing.

[Amore Vero]

.

[Samuel the Lamanite]

Speedracer; Thank you for explaining the difference. FWIW, I think dilution comes for the law/rule giver. In this case only JESUS Himself can dilute the reasons for divorce which is adultery. IMO, the GAs have diluted that definition over the years and then wonder why the Mormon divorce rate increasses greatly and Temple Sealings don't seem to mean much anymore.

[Samuel the Lamanite]

Amore: As usual we are on the same page, amybe a sentence or two with slight differences.