Why does the Church ignore 3 Nephi 12:31-32

[John5]

Why is 3 Nephi 12: 31-32 being ignored by the Church? Is there newer revelation, Did Jesus change his mind?

3 Nephi 12:

31 It hath been written, that whosoever shall put away his wife, let him give her a writing of divorcement.

32 Verily, verily, I say unto you, that whosoever shall put away his wife, saving for the cause of fornication, causeth her to commit adultery; and whoso shall marry her who is divorced committeth adultery.

[Alpine]

I have wondered that myself.

[Nan]

Of course it is different if a man is the one who commits the adultery, causes the divorce and is the one to remarry.

[BroJones]

The passage appears in the Sermon on the Mount New Testament also, and the Brethren have commented on it in the past. Don't have a reference for you right now, but as I recall they noted that this is higher law not applicable at this time... can someone find a reference?

[HeirofNumenor]

Back in early 1996 I had a discussion on this with a girl in Southern Utah - she felt the LDS Church was false because we allow for divorce, contrary to this scripture.

Later that week I discussed this with my GF who had recently converted from Catholicism.
She asked: "Why DO we allow divorce?"
I asked her back: "Why did Moses allow it?"
She responded: "Because they were a weak and foolish people."
I said: "So what has changed?"
Her response: "Got it."

[Alpine]

well I looked into it a bit... Looks like that is true about us living the lesser law. I wonder how many other things we think are ok but are only permitted because of our unrighteousness?

Elder Dahl said this in '99

"Divorce (Matt. 5:31–32; 3 Ne. 12:31–32)
Jesus said, “Whosoever shall put away his wife, saving for the cause of fornication, causeth her to commit adultery; and whoso shall marry her who is divorced committeth adultery” (3 Ne. 12:32).

This verse raises questions of fairness. Why should the wife who is “put away” or the man who later marries her be judged guilty of adultery—when it may be that she is an innocent victim of her husband’s unrighteousness? And how is this instruction to be interpreted today? Why are members of the Church permitted to divorce, even for reasons other than sexual sin, and allowed to remarry, even in the temple, without the charge of adultery?

These are not easy questions to answer. We do not have record of the Savior elaborating on or qualifying these instructions to the Nephites. There is, however, information in the biblical record and in commentary by modern prophets that may help us understand.

On the subject of fairness, Mark’s account is helpful. He records that after the public exchange with the Pharisees about divorce, Jesus and His disciples went “in the house,” where the disciples “asked him again of the same matter.” There the Savior said:

“Whosoever shall put away his wife, and marry another, committeth adultery against her.

“And if a woman shall put away her husband, and be married to another, she committeth adultery” (Mark 10:10–12).

Notice that in this instance the charge of adultery is against the husband or wife who puts away the other and not against the one who is put away. We are left to wonder what other clarifications the Savior may have made “in the house” to His disciples who honestly desired to know the truth.

The Savior’s response to the Pharisees is also instructive. They challenged Jesus’ teaching about divorce because it differed from what was allowed in the law of Moses. “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” (Matt. 19:8). It was no compliment to the Israelites of Moses’ day that they were allowed a lesser standard than that which God intended “from the beginning.” The lesser standard was allowed “because of the hardness of [their] hearts.”

Does this mean that God adjusts standards according to His children’s willingness to obey? Elder Ezra Taft Benson spoke about this principle:

“God has to work through mortals of varying degrees of spiritual progress. Sometimes he temporarily grants to men their unwise requests in order that they might learn from their own sad experiences. Some refer to this as the ‘Samuel principle.’ The children of Israel wanted a king, like all the nations. … The Lord told Samuel to warn the people of the consequences if they had a king. Samuel gave them the warning, but they still insisted on their king. So God gave them a king and let them suffer. … God wanted it to be otherwise, but within certain bounds he grants unto men according to their desires. Bad experiences are an expensive school that only fools keep going to (see 1 Sam. 8).

“Sometimes in our attempts to mimic the world, contrary to the prophet’s counsel, we run after the world’s false educational, political, musical, and dress ideas. New worldly standards take over, a gradual breakdown occurs, and finally, after much suffering, a humble people are ready to be taught once again a higher law.

“Now, during all this gradual lowering of standards, the righteous should be living up to the highest personal standards they can—not forcing those standards on others but preparing for and awaiting a better day which surely must come.” 3

Elder Bruce R. McConkie applied this principle to the subject of divorce: “Divorce is not part of the gospel plan. … But because men in practice do not always live in harmony with gospel standards, the Lord permits divorce for one reason or another, depending upon the spiritual stability of the people involved. … Under the most perfect conditions there would be no divorce permitted except where sex sin was involved. In this day divorces are permitted in accordance with civil statutes, and the divorced persons are permitted by the Church to marry again without the stain of immorality which under a higher system would attend such a course.” 4

When we are not prepared to live a higher law, the Lord, on occasion, may give us a lesser standard, a “schoolmaster” law (see Gal. 3:24). But even strict obedience to the schoolmaster law is not the goal, nor is the law sufficient to exalt us (see Mosiah 3:13–17; Mosiah 12:31–33; Mosiah 13:28–35). The lesser law is a temporary measure, a minimum standard, to help prepare us to live the fulness of the law of Christ. All who would be exalted must, through repentance and obedience, become the kind of people who desire and obey “the law of a celestial kingdom” (D&C 88:22).

Many more honest questions could be asked about divorce as it relates to particular circumstances. Although the scriptures do not address all such questions, we are not left without guidance. Joseph Smith taught that “revelation adapted to the circumstances in which the children of the kingdom are placed” is the “principle on which the government of heaven is conducted.” 5 That revelation comes through the Lord’s authorized servants, who are guided to establish policies and procedures appropriate to the current needs of Church members. As we follow the prophets, the Lord will “lead [us] along” toward “the riches of eternity” (D&C 78:18)."

http://www.lds.org/liahona/1999/08/the- ... her+law%22" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[davedan]

I may be wrong on this; however, I heard this scripture explained this way:

Is there a difference between "putting away" and " divorce?". Someone explained that the ancient Jews would sometime separate from their wives, not give them a bill of divorcement, and they would remarry, since Jews back then openly and freely practiced polygamy. By separating and remarrying himself but not releasing the first wife, the man could punish/abuse the wife by not allowing her to legally remarry and possibly leading her to adultery.

So, Christ was not really saying "never get divorced", but of you are separated with no intention of getting back together, then give your wife a bill of divorcement so she can freely remarry and not be tempted or led to commit adultery.

Yes, in an ideal world divorce is not ideal. But I think we may over interpret this and cause people to feel guilty for seeking a divorce when there is obvious abuse or infidelity and grounds for divorce.

I agree that "irreconcilable differences" is not grounds for divorce.

[davedan]

1 Cor 7:15 But if the unbelieving depart, let him depart. A brother or a sister is not under bondage in such cases: but God hath called us to peace. (KJV)

1 Cor 7:15 But if the unbeliever leaves, let him do so. A believing man or woman is not bound in such circumstances; God has called us to live in peace. (NIV)

What do we think about this scripture. It seems to me that Paul is saying a believing spouse should never seek a divorce from the unbelieving spouse. However, if the unbelieving spouse seeks a divorce, the believing spouse should permit him to leave.

[Kingdom of ZION]

I may be wrong on this; however, I heard this scripture explained this way:

Is there a difference between "putting away" and " divorce?". Someone explained that the ancient Jews would sometime separate from their wives, not give them a bill of divorcement, and they would remarry, since Jews back then openly and freely practiced polygamy. By separating and remarrying himself but not releasing the first wife, the man could punish/abuse the wife by not allowing her to legally remarry and possibly leading her to adultery.

So, Christ was not really saying "never get divorced", but of you are separated with no intention of getting back together, then give your wife a bill of divorcement so she can freely remarry and not be tempted or led to commit adultery.

Yes, in an ideal world divorce is not ideal. But I think we may over interpret this and cause people to feel guilty for seeking a divorce when there is obvious abuse or infidelity and grounds for divorce.

I agree that "irreconcilable differences" is not grounds for divorce.

Amon, you laid it out perfectly, except for the term or condition... 'saving for the cause of fornication'. Fornication, that is a difficult word to define. I have heard it defined a few different ways. I myself choose to seek a good synonym, like 'infidelity' to define what is being said here. Infidelity can be physically of course but it can be the withholding of ones heart and affections, or the unpersuaded desires for another to the degree that nothing else matters. Is that not Fornication?

What if a women seeks a man with greater priesthood authority, as it is vaguely talked about in the doctrine? How does that work? Is in this case, a case with no sin is attached and a exception to the rule is made? I do not think this people could live such a law. Any more than the Saints living the law that a brother shall marry his brother's widow to raise up posterity unto him. Oh yeah, that only works if you can live Plural Celestial Marriage.

Marriage, the only covenant that the whole world needs to live, no church membership required or Priesthood authority to administer it. It is also the least keep covenant. Yet, marriage is not given in the world to come (the Millennium) so choose well.

Shalom.

[gdemetz]

I like your answer Heiro!

[HeirofNumenor]

I like your answer Heiro!

LOL thanks!

[AGStacker]

Elder Oaks:

In ancient times and even under tribal laws in some countries where we now have members, men have power to divorce their wives for any trivial thing. Such unrighteous oppression of women was rejected by the Savior, who declared:

“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 19:8–9).

The kind of marriage required for exaltation—eternal in duration and godlike in quality—does not contemplate divorce. In the temples of the Lord, couples are married for all eternity. But some marriages do not progress toward that ideal. Because “of the hardness of [our] hearts,” the Lord does not currently enforce the consequences of the celestial standard. He permits divorced persons to marry again without the stain of immorality specified in the higher law. Unless a divorced member has committed serious transgressions, he or she can become eligible for a temple recommend under the same worthiness standards that apply to other members.

http://www.lds.org/general-conference/2 ... e?lang=eng" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[JohnnyL]

Elder Oaks:

In ancient times and even under tribal laws in some countries where we now have members, men have power to divorce their wives for any trivial thing. Such unrighteous oppression of women was rejected by the Savior, who declared:

“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 19:8–9).

The kind of marriage required for exaltation—eternal in duration and godlike in quality—does not contemplate divorce. In the temples of the Lord, couples are married for all eternity. But some marriages do not progress toward that ideal. Because “of the hardness of [our] hearts,” the Lord does not currently enforce the consequences of the celestial standard. He permits divorced persons to marry again without the stain of immorality specified in the higher law. Unless a divorced member has committed serious transgressions, he or she can become eligible for a temple recommend under the same worthiness standards that apply to other members.

http://www.lds.org/general-conference/2 ... e?lang=eng" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Ok, this might be off-topic, but that might not be true. Isn't there a question about (alimony, child support, etc.)? If a court unfairly judges, does the man suffer spiritually for it? (Because you know he's most always going to be the one with all those burdens.) Anyway, a side-note question...

[jonesde]

I may be wrong on this; however, I heard this scripture explained this way:

Is there a difference between "putting away" and " divorce?". Someone explained that the ancient Jews would sometime separate from their wives, not give them a bill of divorcement, and they would remarry, since Jews back then openly and freely practiced polygamy. By separating and remarrying himself but not releasing the first wife, the man could punish/abuse the wife by not allowing her to legally remarry and possibly leading her to adultery.

So, Christ was not really saying "never get divorced", but of you are separated with no intention of getting back together, then give your wife a bill of divorcement so she can freely remarry and not be tempted or led to commit adultery.

This is an interesting perspective, and something that some try to do even today. Many people go on to other relationships without having formalized their separation or divorce. In some cases withholding divorce can be used by either spouse to punish the other. It can be the primary breadwinner withholding funds from the other spouse, and possibly from the children as well. It can be the parent with de-facto custody not allowing the other parent to visit or spend time with the children.

I suppose it is fortunate these days that it only takes one party to initiate a divorce, and if the other does not cooperate the court can effect the divorce anyway. Or is it? Maybe that is a bad thing in general... but at least it would reduce the harm from these sorts of attempts to cut off one's spouse.

Yes, in an ideal world divorce is not ideal. But I think we may over interpret this and cause people to feel guilty for seeking a divorce when there is obvious abuse or infidelity and grounds for divorce.

I agree that "irreconcilable differences" is not grounds for divorce.

I'll have to disagree with this from a libertarian perspective. How much do you want the government to be involved in your marriage? How much do you want them involved with the end of your marriage? Many choose a no-fault divorce even when there is adultery involved because it is a way to keep the peace... both between the soon to be former spouses, and with the bevy of lawyers, clerks and judges who profit from the hostile divorce game.

Not that I want to open a can of worms, but it does beg the very common modern question of wives putting away their husbands for lesser sexual sins such as masturbation or viewing pornography. Should those be grounds for divorce?

[awake]

Why is 3 Nephi 12: 31-32 being ignored by the Church? Is there newer revelation, Did Jesus change his mind?

No, I believe Jesus did not change his mind, and any leader's 'newer revelation' cannot contradict or change 'previous revelation and doctrine.

Christ's law on divorce still stands for us today, even if some apostles or leaders may teach an opinion that is contrary to Christ and his scriptures.

Christ's law on divorce is still valid and the consequences still apply, even if some Church leaders dont' agree or adhere to Christ's law today, as Pres. Joseph Fielding Smith said below.

For Apostles and even Prophets can't change or dis-enforce the doctrines or laws of Christ and the scriptures, nor can they implement a 'lesser law' for us today.

"You who deny the revelations of God... for God is the same, yesterday, today and forever and in him there is no variableness neither shadow of changing. Ye have imagined up unto yourselves a God who doth vary."
Mormon 9

"My words, and the teachings of any other member of the Church, high or low, if they do not square with the revelations, we need not accept them. Let us have this matter clear. We have accepted the four standard works as the measuring yardsticks, or balances, by which we measure every man's doctrine."
Joseph Fielding Smith

"One of the reasons we call our scriptures the standard works is that they are the standard judgement and the measuring rod against which doctrines and views are weighed, and it does not make one particle of difference whose views are involved. The scriptures always take precedence."
Bruce R. McConkie, "Finding Answers to Gospel Questions".

"If anyone regardless of his position in the Church were to advance a doctrine that is not substantiated by the standard church works, meaning the Bible, the Book of Mormon, the D&C, and the PoGP, you may know that his statement is merely his private opinion. If any man speak a doctrine which contradicts what is in the standard works, you may know by that same token what it is false and you are not bound to accept it as truth."
Pres. Harold B. Lee

Christ and the scriptures always trump anything that modern Prophets or Apostles may say, think or do.

We must remember that Christ's Apostles and Joseph Smith and on up to Prophets today, teach that no prophet or apostle can ever teach anything contrary to what Christ and the scriptures teach, and if they do, even in Conference, we will know it's false and we shouldn't accept it.

Prophets are obligated to teach the exact words of Christ, they can't change his doctrine or make it obsolete or not binding on us today.

Thus the law of divorce still applies to us today, just as it did in Christ's day, and many Prophets have said so. The few apostles or G.A.'s who have thought and taught otherwise, only prove their opinions wrong, cause it's contrary to scripture and the teachings of Christ, which always trumps their opinion or anyone's opinion on the subject.

Apostles, or even Prophets, can't change doctrine or excuse people from living the higher law without the eternal consequences.

It's not just 3 Nephi 31 that is being ignored, but also Matt. 19:9. Mark 10:10, Luke 15:18 and D&C 42:74-76. Christ taught this teaching in Jerusalem, and to the Nephites and to us today through Joseph Smith. Christ established this law forever more.

We are still held accountable to Christ's higher law on divorce today, even if some leaders don't think so. A Church leader's contrary opinion on the subject will not save or justify us, if we ignore Christ's law.

It is also a commandment from God that no one on earth is to dissolve any marriage.

"What God hath joined together, let not man put asunder." Matt. 19:6, Mark 10:9

The people of Moses' day were so wicked that Moses had to allow divorce, because if he didn't worse things would happen, especially to women and children. That does not mean the people had a free pass with divorce, it was still adultery, but the people wouldn't listen to Moses anymore and so it was out of his hands.

There is no such thing as a 'lesser law' being implemented and Christ's higher law being ignored today, Christ's laws on divorce stand valid for us today and for all eternity.

I believe we are in the same situation in these last days today as the people in Moses's day, Prophets have said that it is more wicked today, almost everywhere, then any other time in history. It seems that everyone in the church, except a few, believes in and accepts divorce today, so I don't think our leaders could enforce Christ's law either, just like Moses couldn't, so some don't even try to, but that doesn't mean that divorce and remarriage isn't adultery today, unless as Christ said, the divorce was for 'fornication' (unrepentant intimacy before marriage, like Joseph thought Mary had committed).

"In the matter of divorce... they, by their unlawful additions & false interpretations had condoned even the sin of Adultery."
James E. Talmage, Jesus the Christ

"Jesus retorts that it is not the privilege but the infamy (disgrace & scandalous qualities) & reproach (shame) of Isreal, that Moses found it necessary to tolerate divorce. "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, separation or breach, firmly united beyond the power of separation), He proclaimed the equal rights of woman & man within the limits of the family, &, in this, gave their charter of nobility to the mothers of the world.”
James E. Talmage, Jesus the Christ, p. 484

"What God hath joined together, let no man put asunder." God had provided for honorable marriage, & had made the relation between husband & wife paramount to that of children to parents. The severing of such a union was an invention of man, not a command of God... In our Lord's day the prevailing laxity in the matter of marital obligation had produced such a state of appalling corruption in Israel; & women, who by the law of God had been made a companion & partner with man, had become his slave. The world's greatest champion of woman & womanhood is Jesus the Christ."
James E. Talmage, Jesus The Christ, p. 474.

"I would like to say much about divorce. When you go home, you pick up your Bible & turn to the 19th chapter of Matthew, read the first 9 verses. I get letters sometimes from people who say, "What are we going to do?" In Matthew it reads so & so & yet the Church is not following it strictly." Well, I write back & say I have no authority to change the word of the Lord. Read it."
Joseph Fielding Smith, Answers to Gospel Questions, Vol. 4.

"I think I can say here safely and truthfully that no judge in this world in any court of the land can annul a marriage for time and all eternity. He may separate the husband and wife by legal enactments so far as this world is concerned, but he cannot separate that husband and wife so far as the next world is concerned. When a man and his wife lose their faith and go to the courts and get a separation and then go out and marry according to the laws of the land, they are not culpable before the laws of the land, but they are before the kingdom of God and what the Savior says here in this revelation is absolutely true: "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."
Joseph Fielding Smith, CR Apr. 1961, 49-50. Great talk.

"The Savior is very emphatic in his answer to the Pharisees. If the law was true in the days of the Savior.... then it seems to me that the law has not changed in the Dispensation of the Fullness of Times. It is only through sin & transgression of the law that a separation can come that would divide father & mother & leave the children stranded & perhaps to be received into some other family by adoption, because parents have lost their faith & have turned from the covenants they solemnly made before God & angels. How members of the Church can do such a thing appears to me as a mystery. It can be explained of course. They do it because they have lost the spirit of the Gospel." Joseph Fielding Smith, CR Apr. 1961.

"You might as well ask me for a piece of blank paper for a divorce, as to have a little writing on it, saying - "We mutually agree to dissolve partnership and keep ourselves apart from each other," &c. It is all nonsense and folly; there is no such thing in the ordinances of the house of God; you cannot find any such law. It is true Jesus told the people that a man could put away his wife for fornication, but for nothing short of this."
Brigham Young, JD 17:120 - p.121, June 28, 1874.

"The Lord's penalty for divorce. If you want to know how serious it is to seek a divorce, I want you to read what the Lord says in the Sermon on the Mount, which is repeated in the Book of Mormon in a similar sermon that was given to the Nephites. If we understood, if we comprehended what the Lord says there, I want to tell you, people would be frightened rather than to seek a separation on some trivial matter - they would be frightened. Marriage according to the law of the Church is the most holy and sacred ordinance. It will bring to the husband and wife, if they abide in their covenants, the fullness of exaltation in the kingdom of God. When that covenant is broken, it will bring eternal misery to the guilty party, for we will all have to answer for our deeds done while in the flesh. It is an ordinance that cannot be trifled with, and the covenants made in the temple cannot be broken without dire punishment to the one who is guilty."
Joseph Fielding Smith, Doctrines of Salvation 2:81-84.

"We are to let the people know... & warn these men & this is not imagination - who, after having lived with their wives & brought into this world four & five & six children, get tired of their wives & seek a divorce, that they are on 'the road to hell'. It is unfair to a woman to leave her that way. Warn him! Nothing but unhappiness for him & injustice to those children can result."
Pres. McKay, CR Apr. 1949, 182-183.

"I want to tell you just once more, and would tell it before all the world if I could, that I believe with all my heart, that if any man ought to be damned in this world, it is the man that will abandon the mother of his children. We do not do it. We will not do it."
Joseph F. Smith, CR Apr. 1917, 6-7.

"If there is any man who ought to merit the curse of Almighty God it is the man who neglects the mother of his children, the wife of his bosom, the one who has made sacrifice of her very life, over & over again for him & his children."
Joseph F. Smith, Gospel Doctrine, p. 313

"A man who has entered into sacred covenants in the house of the Lord to remain true to the marriage vow, is a traitor to that covenant if he separates himself from his wife & family. Even though a loose interpretation of the law of the land would grant such a man a bill of divorcement, I think he is unworthy of a recommend to have his 2nd marriage solemnized in the temple."
David O. McKay, CR, Oct. 1943.

"The tragedy is that some men are ensnared by their own foolishness & their own weakness. They throw to the wind the most sacred & solemn of covenants, entered into in the house of the Lord... They set aside wives who have been faithful, who have loved & cared for them, who have struggled with them in times of poverty only to be discarded in times of affluence. They have left their children fatherless." Pres. Hinckley, CR Oct. 1991.

"Because iniquity shall abound, the love of men shall wax cold. The deluge of divorce, abuse and abandoned wives and children is the result of wickedness engulfing the world... and often, through it all the wicked parties are past feeling, their hearts are cold in solid indifference to the sorrow they cause and the judgments of God they bring upon themselves."
Revelations of the Restoration, Joseph Smith - M. 1:30.
Salvation is lost through divorce." Joseph Fielding Smith, Doctrines of Salvation.

"The ugly dragon of divorce... is one of the principle tools of Satan. The very acceptance of divorce as a cure is also a serious sin of this generation. Because a program or a pattern is universally accepted is not evidence that it is right. Marriage never was easy. It may never be. It brings with it sacrifice, sharing & a demand for great selfishness.... The good of the little family must always be superior to the good of either spouse." Pres. Kimball, 1976 BYU Devotional Speeches of the Year, 142-55.

"In this day when modern thought & 'liberal mindedness' take hold of the people, as it did in the days of Noah before the flood, the sacredness of marriage has largely been lost, if not entirely lost."
Joseph Fielding Smith, Church History & Modern Revelation, 4:159-160.

"Marriage is looked upon by many as a mere contract which may be broken at will or when the contracting parties tire of each other, but they will 'never' tire where they are living righteous lives. Marriage in the world has become a mockery in the sight of the Lord. Children have been caused to suffer by these broken vows of parents, & this suffering... should never be enforced upon children... When the proper persepective is had divorce cannot come. It was never intended that divorce should be & the Lord said it was only because of the hardness of the hearts of the people that it did occur.... Marriage should be considered a sacred covenant."
Joseph Fielding Smith, Church History & Modern Revelation, Vol. 4.

"Marriage is to be eternal, when a man & a woman go to the House of the Lord & are married for time & for all eternity, they take upon them certain covenants that they will be true & faithful in that union. Those covenants are made in the presence of God & angels at the altar in the temple of the Lord. How, then, can a man & a woman with the love of God in their hearts ever turn away from the solemn covenants that they make that they will be true & faithful all the days of their lives in mortality... That is the covenant that they make... That family order should never be broken."
Joseph Fielding Smith

"Now, if there is ever a divorce between a man & a woman married in the temple..... it is because they, one or the other or both have violated the covenants that they have made at the altar of the Lord otherwise they could not separate... One of the greatest sins that can be committed is for a man & a woman to separate..."
Joseph Fielding Smith, CR Apr. 1961.

"If they are true to their covenants, to the obligation that they have made to each other.... they could not separate, & if they have children, they are not only committing a crime against themselves but they are harming those children & robbing them of blessings that they were born entitled to receive."
Joseph Fielding Smith, CR Apr. 1961.

"That divorce comes to them because they are not keeping the commandments that the Lord gave them, because they have permitted darkness to enter into their souls."
Joseph Fielding Smith, CR Apr. 1961.

"If ye shall find that any persons have left their companion & they themselves are the offenders... they shall be cast out from among you (excommunicated). Be watchful & careful with all inquiry (many questions), that ye receive none such among you."
Joseph Smith D&C 42:75-76

"Salvation is lost through divorce...My attention was called to a case where a man & a woman, married in the temple for time & all eternity, have tired of each other. They have reared a family. Now he wants to go his way & she wants to go her way. But they want to be friends! There are no hard feelings between them. They have just got tired. They want a change. Do they have the Spirit of the Gospel in their hearts? I say to you no, or they would not be tired of each other. That could not follow. They got tired of living the principles of eternal truth."
Joseph Fielding Smith

"And think of the children. Here you have a broken home. These people get a divorce & then they want to get a cancellation, perhaps, of their sealing, They want to marry somebody else. And there you have a broken home. What is going to become of the parents? What is going to become of the children? Haven't the children any rights? The parents become separated. Each goes a different way, but they want to be friends! And then they expect to marry again for time & all eternity & enter into the Celestial Kingdom of God to recieve all the blessings of Exaltation! Are they entitled to do it? Not as I read the scriptures - they are not entitled to do it."
Joseph Fielding Smith

"Such a separation is a major crime in the sight of God. What will the Lord do with you if you are guilty of this far-reaching offense? How can you recompense your children? Do you think you are justified in making another covenant, when you have not been true to the first? Do not bring untold suffering upon your innocent offspring which you cannot mend. Do not be decieved, our eternal father will not be mocked."
Joseph Fielding Smith, The Restoration of All Things, p. 254-255.

"I tell you here, now, in the presence of the Almightly God, ... If you obtain one (a wife), it is by mere permission, to see what you will do, how you will act, whether you will conduct yourself in righteousness in that holy estate. Take care! Elders of Isreal, be cautious! Or you will lose you wives & children. If you abuse your wives, turn them out of doors, & treat them in a harsh & cruel manner, you will be left wifeless & childless; you will have no increase in eternity. You will have bartered this blessing, this privilege away; you will have sold your birthright, as Esau did his blessing, & it can never come to you again, never no never!"
Brigham Young, JD 1:119-120.

"Those who violate this sacred & solemn covenant (marriage) are going to have a sorry time of it if they are guilty when they come to the judgement seat of God, for they have broken the bands of an eternal union & lost their promise of Exaltation."
Joseph Fielding Smith

"I am convinced that the Lord will force some couples who separate without justification after they have been sealed, back again to each other, or else they will lose their reward."
Joseph Fielding Smith

"When they undertake to break the commandments & tear to pieces the doings of the Lord, I make them give me something... for their foolishness. Do you think you have obtained a bill of divorce? No, nor ever can if you are faithful (or your spouse is faithful) to the covenants you have made. It takes a higher power than a bill of divorce to take a woman from a man (or man from a woman) who is good...else the spouse is bound to their spouse & will be forever & ever. You might as well ask me for a piece of blank paper for a divorce, as to have a little writing on it... It is all nonsense & folly; There is no such thing in the ordinances of the house of God; you cannot find any such law."
Brigham Young, Journal of Discourses, Vol. 17.

"There is no ecclesiastical law that you know anything about to free a wife from a man to whom she has been sealed if he honors his Priesthood."
Discourses of Brigham Young, p. 196.

"With divorce rates escalating throughout the world today, it is apparent that many spouses are failing to endure to the end of their commitments to each other. And some temple marriages fail because a husband forgets that his highest & most important Priesthood duty is to honor & sustain his wife. The best thing that a father can do for his children is to 'love their mother'. Magnify your wife & in so doing you will magnify your Priesthood... Nevertheless some individuals want to jump 'out of the boat' before reaching land. And others, sadly, are persuaded out by companions who insist that they know more about life's perilous journey than do Prophets of the Lord."
Elder Nelson, CR Apr. 1997.

"Weak commitments to eternal covenants lead to losses of eternal consequences. Laments later in life are laced with remorse, .... For of all sad words of tonue or pen, the saddest are these: "It might have been."
Elder Nelson, CR Apr. 1997.

"I will prove you in all things, whether you will abide in my covenant, even unto death." D&C 98: 14

“That person who puts low value on marriage sows the wind & will reap the whirlwind & bring upon themselves a holocaust.”
Elder Packer, CR Apr. 1981

“And now a word of warning. One who destroys a marriage takes upon himself a very great responsibility indeed. Marriage is sacred!” Elder Packer, CR Apr. 1981

“Do not threaten nor break up a marriage. Do not translate some disenchantment with your marriage partner or an attraction for someone else into justification for any conduct that would destroy a marriage.” Elder Packer, CR Apr. 1981

“To willfully destroy a marriage, either your own or that of another couple, is to offend our God. Such a thing will not be lightly considered in the judgments of the Almighty & in the eternal scheme of things will not easily be forgiven.” Elder Packer, CR Apr. 1981

“Keep your covenants & you will be safe. Break them & you will not.”
Packer, Oct. CR 1990, 107-108

“This monumental transgression (Divorce) frequently places heavy burdens upon little children. They do not understand the selfish yearnings of unhappy adults who are willing to buy their own satisfaction at the expense of the innocent.”
Elder Packer, CR Apr. 1981

“Your responsibility as a father & a husband transcends any other interest in life. It is unthinkable that a Latter-Day Saint man would cheat on his wife or abandon her or the children he has fathered, or neglect or abuse them. The Lord commanded you to bring up your children in light & truth. Some will fall away into apostasy, break their covenants, & replace the plan of redemption with their own rules.” Elder Packer, CR Apr. 1994.

“When parents keep the covenants they have made at the altar of the temple, their children will be forever bound to them."
Elder Packer, Apr. CR. 1992, 94-95

"Marriage was once regarded as the most sacred of institutions, to be upheld through sunshine & storm. Now, the epidemic of divorce rages on & while parents quarrel children suffer. The very foundation of their lives.... is pulled from under them."
Teachings of Gordon B. Hinckley

“They say that divorce is worse than death."
The Life & Teachings of James E. Faust.

“I cannot understand how a man who holds the holy priesthood & who has entered into sacred & binding covenants before the Lord could justify abandoning his responsibilities for his wife & children who exist because of him and whose flesh & blood & heritage they have partaken.”
Pres. Hinckley, Oct. Conf. 1991, 68-73

“Marriage is by nature a covenant, not just a private contract one may cancel at will. Jesus taught about contractual attitudes when he described the “hireling,” who performs his conditional promise of care only when he receives something in return. When the hireling “seeth the wolf coming,” he “leaveth the sheep, and fleeth…because he…careth not for the sheep.” By contrast, the Savior said, “I am the good shepherd,…& I lay down my life for the sheep.” Many people today marry as hirelings. And when the wolf comes (troubles that threaten them with harm), they flee. This idea is wrong. It curses the earth, turning parents’ hearts away from their children & from each other.”
Elder Bruce C. Hafen, CR Oct 1996.

“When troubles come, the parties to a contractual marriage seek happiness by walking away. They marry to obtain benefits & will stay only as long as they’re receiving what they bargained for. But when troubles come to a covenant marriage, the husband & wife work them through…Contract companions each give 50%; Covenant companions each give 100%. Marriage is by nature a covenant, not just a private contract one may cancel at will.”
Elder Hafen, CR Oct. 1996, 34.

"Brigham Young complains about the number of church members who are coming to him to be divorced from their spouse: "We are continually, giving divorces. I now inform every one of my sisters that when they come to get a divorce, paying me ten dollars for it, you may just as well tear off a piece of your shirt tail & lay it by, & call it a divorce so far as any good that piece of paper called divorce will do you."
Brigham Young, A Few Words of Doctrine, Oct. 8, 1891.

"You can divorce & agree to stay away from each other but it is all foolishness & folly." Brigham Young

“Some individuals have not been fully truthful when they were interviewed for their temple recommends. And unfortunately also, some priesthood leaders have not been as thorough & as careful as they should have been in conducting these interviews & some people have gone to the temples unworthily. In so doing, they have placed their eternal future in jeopardy.”
William H. Bennett, Assistant to the Council of the Twelve, “Covenants & Blessings”, Ensign, Nov. 1975, p.45., CR Oct. 1975.

[jeanpierre]

I think right now the name of the game is to keep people active in the Church.

Also, I think the Prophet can change or dis-enforce the doctrines or laws of Christ and the scriptures, and can implement a 'lesser law" if directed/inspired by the Lord to do so.

Please, I welcome documented correction on either of these statements.

[awake]

I think right now the name of the game is to keep people active in the Church.

Also, I think the Prophet can change or dis-enforce the doctrines or laws of Christ and the scriptures, and can implement a 'lesser law" if directed/inspired by the Lord to do so.

Please, I welcome documented correction on either of these statements.

If the Prophet declared that he received a revelation that said divorce was not a sin anymore and we are now living a lesser law than Christ gave us, than members would know it was a false revelation, for it contradicted the scriptures and what Christ taught.

Joseph used that same test to discern bad angels and their revelation, by if they contradicted former revelation and scripture.

"How, it may be asked, was this known to be a bad angel?... By his contradicting a former revelation."
Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, pp. 215-216.

True prophets have to teach the words of Christ and his same doctrines and laws, for that's how we tell true prophets from false prophets. False prophets will change doctrine. True Prophets don't. God's doctrine is the same yesterday, today and forever.

I don't believe God lowers his standards to give the weak a free pass to sin without consequences, for that just makes them usually get much worse.

The scriptures teach that if there is no punishment for sin, it's as if there is no law against it, and people would not be afraid to do evil.

"But though 'we' or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed."
Gal. 1:8

"You who deny the revelations of God... for God is the same, yesterday, today and forever and in him there is no variableness neither shadow of changing. Ye have imagined up unto yourselves a God who doth vary."
Mormon 9

"My words, and the teachings of any other member of the Church, high or low, if they do not square with the revelations, we need not accept them. Let us have this matter clear. We have accepted the four standard works as the measuring yardsticks, or balances, by which we measure every man's doctrine."
Joseph Fielding Smith

"One of the reasons we call our scriptures the standard works is that they are the standard judgement and the measuring rod against which doctrines and views are weighed, and it does not make one particle of difference whose views are involved. The scriptures always take precedence."
Bruce R. McConkie, "Finding Answers to Gospel Questions".

"If anyone regardless of his position in the Church were to advance a doctrine that is not substantiated by the standard church works, meaning the Bible, the Book of Mormon, the D&C, and the PoGP, you may know that his statement is merely his private opinion. If any man speak a doctrine which contradicts what is in the standard works, you may know by that same token what it is false and you are not bound to accept it as truth."
Pres. Harold B. Lee

[HeirofNumenor]

"How, it may be asked, was this known to be a bad angel?... By his contradicting a former revelation."
Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, pp. 215-216.

Please note the context here....

The Lord through Joseph Smith, had called a man to go on a mission and preach the Gospel "unto the ends of the earth."

That man's wife had a vision where she was told to go to certain place into the woods at a set time, at which an angel would appear to her. She did so, and a glorious angel dressed in white, with sandy colored hair DID appear to her. This angel said that her husband MUST NOT travel more than 100 miles form their home, else he would never return (would die on his mission).

Joseph stated that that man went on his mission, has been more than 1,000 miles from home, and is yet alive.
"Many true things were spoken by this personage, and many things which were false. How, it may be asked, was this known to be a bad angel? By the color of his hair: that is one of the signs that he can be known by, and by his contradicting a former revelation."

Now for context:
The bad angel's hair was Sandy colored (light brown) - whereas all scriptural accounts including the D&C have a divine being appearing in glory are mentioned only with white/glorious hair.
As for contradicting the former revelation - Joseph was the one that relayed the revelation to the man regarding his mission, which the bad angel tried to negate. Joseph was definitely in a position to know the will of the Lord in this matter.

It wasn't something which occurred hundreds of years later (or even decades) of one prophet being told to alter something revealed to a much earlier prophet.

I guess the question regarding the gospel topic(s) bothering you is Do you believe that both men involved (earlier and later) - they were both prophets, and both received revelation from God in the matter? Yes or No.


The following are all revelations given from God through Joseph Smith:

Doctrine and Covenants 56:4

4 Wherefore I, the Lord, command and revoke, as it seemeth me good; and all this to be answered upon the heads of the rebellious, saith the Lord.

Doctrine and Covenants 56:5

5 Wherefore, I revoke the commandment which was given unto my servants Thomas B. Marsh and Ezra Thayre, and give a new commandment unto my servant Thomas, that he shall take up his journey speedily to the land of Missouri, and my servant Selah J. Griffin shall also go with him.

Doctrine and Covenants 56:6

6 For behold, I revoke the commandment which was given unto my servants Selah J. Griffin and Newel Knight, in consequence of the stiffneckedness of my people which are in Thompson, and their rebellions.

Doctrine and Covenants 58:32

32 I command and men obey not; I revoke and they receive not the blessing.

Doctrine and Covenants 75:6-8

6 Therefore, verily I say unto my servant William E. McLellin, I revoke the commission which I gave unto him to go unto the eastern countries;
7 And I give unto him a new commission and a new commandment, in the which I, the Lord, chasten him for the murmurings of his heart;
8 And he sinned; nevertheless, I forgive him and say unto him again, Go ye into the south countries.

[Jason]

there's a long list of policy changes in church government throughout the scriptures. Major one with the transition out of the Law of Moses. One could easily pick a dozen plus to criticize church leadership about if they were so inclined....

[John5]

"How, it may be asked, was this known to be a bad angel?... By his contradicting a former revelation."
Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, pp. 215-216.

Please note the context here....

The Lord through Joseph Smith, had called a man to go on a mission and preach the Gospel "unto the ends of the earth."

That man's wife had a vision where she was told to go to certain place into the woods at a set time, at which an angel would appear to her. She did so, and a glorious angel dressed in white, with sandy colored hair DID appear to her. This angel said that her husband MUST NOT travel more than 100 miles form their home, else he would never return (would die on his mission).

Joseph stated that that man went on his mission, has been more than 1,000 miles from home, and is yet alive.
"Many true things were spoken by this personage, and many things which were false. How, it may be asked, was this known to be a bad angel? By the color of his hair: that is one of the signs that he can be known by, and by his contradicting a former revelation."

Now for context:
The bad angel's hair was Sandy colored (light brown) - whereas all scriptural accounts including the D&C have a divine being appearing in glory are mentioned only with white/glorious hair.
As for contradicting the former revelation - Joseph was the one that relayed the revelation to the man regarding his mission, which the bad angel tried to negate. Joseph was definitely in a position to know the will of the Lord in this matter.

It wasn't something which occurred hundreds of years later (or even decades) of one prophet being told to alter something revealed to a much earlier prophet.

I guess the question regarding the gospel topic(s) bothering you is Do you believe that both men involved (earlier and later) - they were both prophets, and both received revelation from God in the matter? Yes or No.


The following are all revelations given from God through Joseph Smith:

Doctrine and Covenants 56:4

4 Wherefore I, the Lord, command and revoke, as it seemeth me good; and all this to be answered upon the heads of the rebellious, saith the Lord.

Doctrine and Covenants 56:5

5 Wherefore, I revoke the commandment which was given unto my servants Thomas B. Marsh and Ezra Thayre, and give a new commandment unto my servant Thomas, that he shall take up his journey speedily to the land of Missouri, and my servant Selah J. Griffin shall also go with him.

Doctrine and Covenants 56:6

6 For behold, I revoke the commandment which was given unto my servants Selah J. Griffin and Newel Knight, in consequence of the stiffneckedness of my people which are in Thompson, and their rebellions.

Doctrine and Covenants 58:32

32 I command and men obey not; I revoke and they receive not the blessing.

Doctrine and Covenants 75:6-8

6 Therefore, verily I say unto my servant William E. McLellin, I revoke the commission which I gave unto him to go unto the eastern countries;
7 And I give unto him a new commission and a new commandment, in the which I, the Lord, chasten him for the murmurings of his heart;
8 And he sinned; nevertheless, I forgive him and say unto him again, Go ye into the south countries.

The list of examples you gave does not include doctrine, they are commandments to individuals. The original question concerns canonized doctrine.

[awake]

As for contradicting the former revelation - Joseph was the one that relayed the revelation to the man regarding his mission, which the bad angel tried to negate.

I guess the question regarding the gospel topic(s) bothering you is Do you believe that both men involved (earlier and later) - they were both prophets, and both received revelation from God in the matter? Yes or No.

I don't believe prophets would receive contrary revelation on doctrine from each other, no matter how many years apart they were. Modern prophets today have to teach the same doctrines as ancient Prophets from the Book of Mormon and can never contradict their teachings. The Book of Mormon is the cornerstone of our religion, it is the foundation of our doctrine. We tell false prophets today by if they teach different than what the Book of Mormon teaches.

The meaning of the quote about a bad angel is not changed when the whole story is told, which I was well aware of, it actually strengthens the idea that you discern bad angels or false revelation by it's contradicting previous revelation or doctrine.

Joseph taught this concept at other times also, as have many other prophets through the years. I have posted their quotes a number of times in the last few weeks, and will again if you missed them, for they explained that not even prophets can teach contrary doctrine to what the scriptures teach or we would know it's false.

As far as those many scriptures you quoted, I believe it is very different when God commands someone personally to do something specific or go somewhere on a mission, etc. He can change or revoke his commands regarding specific situations and people, but when he teaches doctrine for the whole world it always stays the same, for it's based on eternal law that even He must obey or he would cease to be God. (for he didn't come up with it, truth always was.)

When Christ's brought forth his new law it only built upon the existing law or completed it. The people of Moses only had a lesser law given to them, (the ten commandments), and Christ came and gave the people even harder commandments to live, but his new commandments did not contradict the 10 commandments, he only built upon them further.

For example, not only should we not commit adultery, Christ now clarified further that if we divorce & remarry without justification we also commit adultery. He was teaching an even higher aspect of the law that wasn't taught yet, or at least not generally, even though it had always been true, even for the people in Moses's day, who did not get a free pass to divorce without consequences.

But Christ's new insights that built on existing scripture were even harder to take, things even Christ's disciples appeared to have a hard time with. They even said that if such was the case with divorce and they couldn't do it anymore, maybe it would be better for a man to never marry, (then get stuck with the same woman his whole life).

We still are required to live the 10 commandment, as well as Christ's additional laws for they are in harmony with each other.

Likewise, prophets can give us additional insight like Christ did, like with marriage when Pres. Hinckley said we should put our spouse's needs, desires and welfare before our own. That isn't actually in the scriptures but it is in complete harmony with the command the scriptures give to love our spouse.

True prophets will give additional insight but it just will never contradict former scriptures, it will only be more specific on how to live the scriptures even better.

[John5]

As for contradicting the former revelation - Joseph was the one that relayed the revelation to the man regarding his mission, which the bad angel tried to negate.

I guess the question regarding the gospel topic(s) bothering you is Do you believe that both men involved (earlier and later) - they were both prophets, and both received revelation from God in the matter? Yes or No.

I don't believe prophets would receive contrary revelation on doctrine from each other, no matter how many years apart they were. Modern prophets today have to teach the same doctrines as ancient Prophets from the Book of Mormon and can never contradict their teachings. The Book of Mormon is the cornerstone of our religion, it is the foundation of our doctrine. We tell false prophets today by if they teach different than what the Book of Mormon teaches.

The meaning of the quote about a bad angel is not changed when the whole story is told, which I was well aware of, it actually strengthens the idea that you discern bad angels or false revelation by it's contradicting previous revelation or doctrine.

Joseph taught this concept at other times also, as have many other prophets through the years. I have posted their quotes a number of times in the last few weeks, and will again if you missed them, for they explained that not even prophets can teach contrary doctrine to what the scriptures teach or we would know it's false.

As far as those many scriptures you quoted, I believe it is very different when God commands someone personally to do something specific or go somewhere on a mission, etc. He can change or revoke his commands regarding specific situations and people, but when he teaches doctrine for the whole world it always stays the same, for it's based on eternal law that even He must obey or he would cease to be God. (for he didn't come up with it, truth always was.)

When Christ's brought forth his new law it only built upon the existing law or completed it. The people of Moses only had a lesser law given to them, (the ten commandments), and Christ came and gave the people even harder commandments to live, but his new commandments did not contradict the 10 commandments, he only built upon them further.

For example, not only should we not commit adultery, Christ now clarified further that if we divorce & remarry without justification we also commit adultery. He was teaching an even higher aspect of the law that wasn't taught yet, or at least not generally, even though it had always been true, even for the people in Moses's day, who did not get a free pass to divorce without consequences.

But Christ's new insights that built on existing scripture were even harder to take, things even Christ's disciples appeared to have a hard time with. They even said that if such was the case with divorce and they couldn't do it anymore, maybe it would be better for a man to never marry, (then get stuck with the same woman his whole life).

We still are required to live the 10 commandment, as well as Christ's additional laws for they are in harmony with each other.

Likewise, prophets can give us additional insight like Christ did, like with marriage when Pres. Hinckley said we should put our spouse's needs, desires and welfare before our own. That isn't actually in the scriptures but it is in complete harmony with the command the scriptures give to love our spouse.

True prophets will give additional insight but it just will never contradict former scriptures, it will only be more specific on how to live the scriptures even better.

@ Awake

I thank you for your references and comments. What you have written is very good. I cannot find any fault in what you have said. However, do you feel inclined to comment on the original question.

[Fiannan]

Back in early 1996 I had a discussion on this with a girl in Southern Utah - she felt the LDS Church was false because we allow for divorce, contrary to this scripture.

Later that week I discussed this with my GF who had recently converted from Catholicism.
She asked: "Why DO we allow divorce?"
I asked her back: "Why did Moses allow it?"
She responded: "Because they were a weak and foolish people."
I said: "So what has changed?"
Her response: "Got it."

That is true I think. Just as the people today are not given polygamy I think we can safely say that we are a spiritually weaker species than others have been in the past.

[Fiannan]

Not that I want to open a can of worms, but it does beg the very common modern question of wives putting away their husbands for lesser sexual sins such as masturbation or viewing pornography. Should those be grounds for divorce?

Does anyone actually do that aside from some LDS women on the quirky fringe of our culture?

[awake]

Awake
do you feel inclined to comment on the original question.

Original question? As in "Why does the Church ignore 3 Nephi 12:31?

Well, I believe they are wrong to ignore it and allow such things to go on. I believe that's one of the reasons Elder Benson said the Church is under condemnation, for it is not following the Book of Mormon, or Christ's law.

Why do they then? Probably because even most leaders don't understand how serious Christ was about divorce, or they just don't want to follow it if they do understand it. But that won't excuse them for allowing it, they will be held accountable for supporting the disintegration of marriages and families and the destruction of men, women and children. It's all very serious.

And the Church's very liberal divorce policy started with Brigham Young. The Church back then was known as having the most liberal divorce policy of most any church or group in the nation.

I have Catholic and Baptist and other non-LDS female relatives & friends, who have said they could never trust or join our church because of how it allows men to abandon their wives for any reason. They feel they and their marriages & families are safer and more protected in their own religions. Thus they would never accept the missionaries because of what they see going on in our Church. And I don't blame them. I admire the Catholic and Baptists harder stance on divorce.

I don't believe that "the Prophet or my Bishop said I could do it" will hold much water at the last day. For we all have the scriptures before us, even if a church leader may allow or say otherwise.

We all know that church leaders, including the Prophet, are not infallible, and they must follow the scriptures the same as anyone.