Bhodi

A sexual relationship with a wife, which is what a sealing is, is a relationship with a wife. If the sealing has not been cancelled, there is no ex-spouse. Edit: "Therefore what God has joined together, let man not separate." (Unless it is the US government)

I never questioned that civil divorce nullifies civil law. But a sealing is higher than civil law. A marraige per celestial law is not nullified by civil law, unless your theology runs completely counter to LDS theology. This is not debatable, it is not arguable, it is fact, celestial law does not care one whit about civil law. So, given that fact, how is the contradiction dealt with? Pretending that the contradiction does not exist hardly make it go away any more than putting your fingers in your ears and saying "Nah, Nah, Nah" makes the aggrivating effect go away. Edit: The problem is in practice, American Mormons give the US government a lot of celestial authority that our doctrine and our theology does not. I have not met a single Brit, Italian, German, Swiss, French, Spanish, or any other LDS Church member who would believe that their government marriage impacted their celestial marriage. It is only in the US, that we make this problem exist.

so far I have been condescended to, belittled, accused falsely, etc... all because I challenged your assertions and I am the new guy. One of your sources has already been proven false, and when I was asked to provide evidence, I did so with direct quotes and hyperlinks. You should certainly be able to do the same, and keep in mind your claim involved blond hair and blue eyes. I know you are wrong, I was not condescending, I did not insult you, I was not sarcastic, all of which was done to me, but is allowed according to the rules apparently, all I ask is simple direct ciitation. Tacitus proved incorrect, this source is incorrect too. If you cannot provide a source, then...?

Please quote specifically. It does, as it has done with the above.

You would again be incorrect on multiple issues. 1. The CHI is certainly not sacred by any stretch of the imagination. It is somewhat confidential, but not really... 2. The section I referenced is posted here... Temple Divorce, Cancellation of Sealing | Ask Gramps and in the 1975 New Era magazine. It has not changed much (not a big surprise there). So it cannot be confidential, since the Church published the particular part several decades ago... 3. It is highly inappropriate to accuse me of seeking a loophole, since I did no such thing. The loophole, if you had read my comments, it not in Church doctrine or theology at all, but in our non-theological and non-doctrinal practice of accepting governmental actions as religiously binding.

Wrong on both counts, sort of. The current version is available in multiple places on the internet if you're interested. The Church does not sanction it, but it is there nonetheless. I do not necessarily know why they are not posted, they are hardly salacious, but... Also you would be remiss in assuming I have not had an official copy at one point in time, why would you suspect otherwise? Also the situation I was discussing is not covered by the CHI, that is why it is a administrative loophole, though the theological principles are, which is why I was pointing out that many posters were wrong. The same principles are also posted on various articles as well as an Ask Gramps article...

BTW, you might want to re-read Tacitus... "They will not feed or intermarry with gentiles. Though a most lascivious people, the Jews avoid sexual intercourse with women of alien race."

That makes no sense with regards to this line of questioning.

But the views WERE wrong. Per the Church Handbook of Instruction, Book 1, Section 8. Just because someone says something does not mean they cannot be wrong. I asked about the moral loophole caused by the recognition of government marriage as valid, which has no basis in theology. To argue that the loophole does not exist is to ignore or be unaware of our theology and doctrine. I was unaware that these issues were as esoteric as they apparently are.

I don't believe I have said anything untrue, doctrinally incorrect, or without actually putting a lot of study into the subject.

My resume is on LinkedIn. Again, do most members get grilled?

This post is from the east coast. Who cares?

Well I am military and I've manage to get training scheduled between Thanksgiving and Christmas allowing my family to be with their larger family for the holidays. Also if he knows enough to read IP addresses he should know that you can make your IP address anything. I have a VPN overseas, since Netflix will not work outside of the US, and AFN is not that great, so we use Netflix and Hulu, but that IP is somewhere in New Jersey. Is this the sort of questioning most new members have to live with?

Are you still looking for help? I know some people in your area that could help if you need it.

Because I live in Italy....?

Well, from BYU, discussing the Hebraisms of the BoM... "2. A new law was then issued that no Nephite should intermarry with the Lamanites. The penalty for anyone who might break this law was affliction with a curse (see 2 Nephi 5:23). This New World prohibition compares to the similar law given to the Israelites at the time of their conquest in the Old World: it prohibited them from intermarrying with the Canaanites (see Deuteronomy 7:3-4)." Or there is a good book discussing the development and application on the prohibition from Oxford University Press discussed here... Bryn Mawr Classical Review 2004.12.06 Actually I did not make that statement that I can see. Perhaps you could cite me specifically? Where in Tacitus? I was an ancient history undergrad, and that was a while ago, but I am not aware of any comment like that. For your ease here is Tacitus The Internet Classics Archive | Works by Tacitus Also Satlow is available online as well, could you cite specifically?

That's passing the buck. I suspect why it happened, we had to recognize something, so the government contract is easier to deal with, but in reality it has opened a whole can of worms. Theologically the government piece of paper is just that, a piece of paper.

That I know of no scholars who would support his assertion? How can I produce scholars to support the fact that I know of no scholars who support his position? Shouldn't the responsibility be on his part to show that scholars support his position?

But this all involves the issue of government recognition. Going back to something I said previously, Catholics do not recognize anything other than Catholic marriage. If you want to become Catholic and you are married, you still have to have your marriage solmenized. There is some utility in that, it prevents confusion. Why does anyone care at all if the government recognizes the marriage? Why would that matter?

??? To support a negative? That is a logical impossibility.

You said "Palestinian Jews had a range of skin and eye colors, including light skin and blue eyes". I thought we were talking about Palestinian Jews? That's why I said ethno-religious.

I agree, there would probably be action, but I do not think it would be theologically or doctrinally valid, since they are still married in the eyes of the Church. It is a loophole, in part caused because we recognize the government as authoritative, for some reason.

They certainly did, particularly after Alexander, but this has nothing to do with Palestinian Jews around 0 AD.

I do not think it is, but if you have some legitimate scholars who support your position I would be interested in seeing them. ??? And you are saying that the Jewish community in Palestine intermarried this way with enough regularity that by 0 AD there were "Palestinian Jews [who] had a range of skin and eye colors, including light skin and blue eyes"? Please provide some evidence.

Do you have any scholarship to support this position?