Is this adultery???

[pam]

I'm listening to the actual audio right now to see what exactly was said.

[Hemidakota]

I have found it once I had the title [The Seven Deadly Heresies]...do not know why the search engine didn't like the phrase.

"For I, the Lord, will judge all men according to their works, according to the desire of their hearts." [D&C 137:7-9]

Without being the first person of this individual stated, I cannot tell whether he was given a confirmation by the Holy Ghost in order to reject the message, whether it be one time or million times. This where I would disagree with Elder McConkie. If the person was approach without the aid of the Holy Ghost, he would still have the opportunity in the next life to hear it [spirit Prison]. I would use the Holy Ghost the final 'Axe' to this man eternal fate on whether or not he will be allowed to continue with his companion. Subjectiveness is being presented here since know one here is privy to this man beginnings here in mortality and why his pre-death state was a mess.

[pam]

Testing to see if this will work:

The following is an unedited transcription of a talk given by Mormon Apostle Bruce R. McConkie (1915-1985) at the Marriott Center at Brigham Young University on June 1, 1980 (MP3 available here).

When you listen to the actual audio it does have it as Vort quoted it.

[foreverafter]

I wonder how you are "sure" of it. Is it because everyone must repent sometime?

So prophets don't have opinions? All prophets (with the exception of Joseph Smith) were Apostles prior to being President of the Church. Do they suddenly cease to have an opinion as soon as they are sustain to the Presidency?

Based of the strength of character Emma showed at most other times & the wisdom in her teachings & by the Spirit, I am sure she regretted a moment of anger that caused another woman pain. And yes, also because everyone must eventually repent, the easier way here or the hard way in the next life. We are only allowed out of Spirit Prison & into one of the 3 kingdoms once we have paid for & are totally cleansed from all our sins.

Yes, I agree that even Presidents of the Church have their own opinions on things but once in that position I'm sure they are much more careful of what they say, especially at the pulpit, knowing that Heavenly Father will not allow them to lead us astray, thus they make sure they are speaking by the Spirit. We are commanded to have the Spirit when listening to what they say though, so we may know if what they say is true or not & then we are promised we will never be lead astray by a Prophet. We are not promised Apostles can't lead us astray or anyone else down the line. For many Apostles & other leaders have fallen.

Edited June 4, 2009 by foreverafter

[Vort]

Ok...having over 350,000 articles and 12,000 copies of different books, I cannot find that phrase. Do you have a reference?

Listen to the talk. If it was given at a BYU devotional (which I believe is the case), it's available for free download in mp3 format at The BYU Speeches website.

[Vort]

If not then send it PM. Thanks. I'm curious on why he stated this.

Because contrary to a misconception popular in some circles, Elder McConkie was a very funny man with a sharp sense of humor and keen insights in his humor.

[Tarnished]

I'm sorry I don't have more time to list all of the hundreds of references I have. But they are so easy to find I am sure you will find them in your studies.

I have often looked for the sources you cite and even when you do list your sources it is shown that you have taken them completely out of context. Somehow you have talked yourself into believing something that is not doctrinally true and you seem to have a mission of going around spreading your personal beliefs. Or rather "The Gospel according to Foreverafter". If you stated that what you say when you respond to posts are your opinion on the matter that would be fine, but the problem is that you take things that prophets have said out of context and you twist them to your own belief structure, and then you use that belief structure to give advice to people. And this advice often causes people to be confused. I really don't know what happened to you in the past that may have created this belief structure of yours but there is some incorrect doctrine in it. I really wish I could just ignore all the posts you make and just leave you to believe what you believe, but when you mislead people in what is and is not true doctrine then I can not ignore what you are saying.

What is possibly just as annoying is the amount of times you hijack a thread. Have you gone through and looked back to see just how many threads you have hijacked with your comments? And the reason behind all these hijackings is because people have to stop and make comments rectifying your own comments to assure that others do not become confused by false doctrine. Have you ever wondered why so many people have problems with what you believe? If it was correct wouldn't you assume that the other members of the church here on the forum boards would say, "Yes, I agree completely" to the comments you make? There is some true doctrine in what you believe but there is also a good bit of false doctrine that you have decided to cling to. The fact that you are so anxious to pass this false doctrine on to others is a good bit worrisome.

[pam]

I do have to say that I was up until almost 2 a.m. this morning because things said bothered me. I started to question my own belief and understanding about a few things. First time I've ever done that and it wasn't a good feeling at all.

[Hemidakota]

Now it depends on where you go: I found the lds.org archive the same talk but with different wording:

The Seven Deadly Heresies - Bruce R. McConkie

The words on this one would have the words exactly as Bytor quoted them.

I finally listened to Elder McConkie talk Pam, concerning number four hearsay, with the plight of this man after his death and his wife, whom did the temple work. Is there a second chance for him in entering into the Celestial Kingdom? No! According to this man's own admission, he stated, he knew the church was true but refuses to relinquish those weakness or sins, either out of arrogance or thought he could be saved in the next life. I do agree with Elder McConkie assessment.

Thanks again Pam for the audio version.

[pam]

No problem Hemi. I'm glad to know that I am not off the mark on my understanding of it.

[deadinside]

The church follows the law of the land as well. You may be sealed in heaven, but on earth you are divorced. Thus fornication or adultery.

[deseretgov]

I just had a thought on this topic this morning.

Say a couple was married and sealed in the temple here in the United States. So they wree married legally here. Now say this couple traveled to a nation for a vacation. But the other nation does not racognize and marriages other than those performed in their own country. So according to the laws of the nation where they vacationed they are not married.

Since, as we say, we believe in following the laws of the land. Would that mean that the couple couldn't do any husband and wife things? They wouldn't be married according to the laws of the land they are in. Or does it mean you just have to have your marriage legal in some nation?

[Vort]

Responding to the OP:

Scenario: Man is sealed to wife and later divorces. They get together a year or so later and are "intimate". IS this adultery? They are still sealed together, but civilly divorced.

Yes, it's clearly adultery. (It is indeed adultery, too, and not "just" fornication, since it involves betrayal of the covenant.)

The law of chastity stipulates that a sexually involved couple be "legally and lawfully married". I interpret "legally" as pertaining to the law of the land, and "lawfully" as pertaining to the law of God. Thus, if a couple is not legally married, their intimate relations are fornication and constitute adultery -- even if they happen to be sealed to each other.

[deseretgov]

I interpret "legally" as pertaining to the law of the land, and "lawfully" as pertaining to the law of God.

That makes sense. I always wondered about that. It sort of seemed like that same thing to me until now.

[Rico]

Ok, now I am going to give a real live example of this.

A man and a woman are both married to other people in their home country of the Philippines. They go off and work in another country. They fall in love, divorce their spouses and get married in this other country. Their home country, the Philippines, doesn't have divorce and in fact, doesn't recognize foreign divorces of its citizens. In other words, in the Philippines, they are still married to their original spouses. This couple then goes to the temple in a 3rd country and gets sealed together.

When they go back to the Philippines, they are still legally married to another spouse, if they are intimate with each other while in Philippines, they can arrested for adultery, but what is the church stance? They are lawfully married in another jurisdiction.

Also, judging from the posts here, if they both went back to their original spouses and were intimate, that would be legal? How would that fit in with the doctrine of the Church? It's not adulterous by the law of the land, but ???? They would be violating their covenants when sealed, right?

As you answer this, you might want to revisit original answers to the original post....

[Vort]

Ok, now I am going to give a real live example of this.

A man and a woman are both married to other people in their home country of the Philippines. They go off and work in another country. They fall in love, divorce their spouses and get married in this other country. Their home country, the Philippines, doesn't have divorce and in fact, doesn't recognize foreign divorces of its citizens. In other words, in the Philippines, they are still married to their original spouses. This couple then goes to the temple in a 3rd country and gets sealed together.

When they go back to the Philippines, they are still legally married to another spouse, if they are intimate with each other while in Philippines, they can arrested for adultery, but what is the church stance? They are lawfully married in another jurisdiction.

I don't know. I believe (but I could be wrong) that the Church would recognize the divorces and subsequent remarriage. If they were sealed to each other with their leaders' full knowledge of their previous marriages, this must be the case. Thus, I assume the Church would recognize their conjugal relations as lawful and appropriate.

Also, judging from the posts here, if they both went back to their original spouses and were intimate, that would be legal?

I don't know; that's a question to ask the Philippine government.

How would that fit in with the doctrine of the Church? It's not adulterous by the law of the land, but ???? They would be violating their covenants when sealed, right?

Yes, I assume so.

As you answer this, you might want to revisit original answers to the original post....

Why?

[Rico]

I don't know. I believe (but I could be wrong) that the Church would recognize the divorces and subsequent remarriage. If they were sealed to each other with their leaders' full knowledge of their previous marriages, this must be the case. Thus, I assume the Church would recognize their conjugal relations as lawful and appropriate.

Actually to add a wrinkle to it. The couple was unable to be sealed in the Manila temple and had to go a temple in a third country so the temple in Manila wouldn't recognize the marriage because of the civil law, but one in another country could.

I don't know; that's a question to ask the Philippine government.

Adultery is a crime in the Philippines and this behavior is specifically singled out as adultery under the law in the Philippines.

Yes, I assume so.

:) So it's possible to commit adultery and live the covenants made in the temple. :)

I think there is an easier answer to both this and the original poster...the Law of God is supreme to manmade law and if man's law contradicts with God's Law then God's Law is followed.

[Vort]

Actually to add a wrinkle to it. The couple was unable to be sealed in the Manila temple and had to go a temple in a third country so the temple in Manila wouldn't recognize the marriage because of the civil law, but one in another country could.

More correctly, the Church could not contract the marriage in the Manila temple because of local laws. The temple itself does not "recognize" or "refuse to recognize" marriages.

:) So it's possible to commit adultery and live the covenants made in the temple. :)

By definition, no, that is not possible.

I think there is an easier answer to both this and the original poster...the Law of God is supreme to manmade law and if man's law contradicts with God's Law then God's Law is followed.

Not so. For example, the Manila temple would not contract their marriage, because God's law (generally) will not violate man's law.

Would the aforementioned couple be prosecuted under the Philippine's adultery laws if they were to return to the country, but not together as a couple? In other words, would the Philippines prosecute them for adultery because they divorced and remarried in another country, even if they did not live as a married couple in the Philippines or even see each other? If so, then I grant there may be some truth to the distinctions you draw. Otherwise, I maintain that there is no real contradiction here.

[Rico]

Would the aforementioned couple be prosecuted under the Philippine's adultery laws if they were to return to the country, but not together as a couple? In other words, would the Philippines prosecute them for adultery because they divorced and remarried in another country, even if they did not live as a married couple in the Philippines or even see each other? If so, then I grant there may be some truth to the distinctions you draw. Otherwise, I maintain that there is no real contradiction here.

They would be prosecuted for bigamy. In fact, they could be prosecuted for bigamy ad concubinage right now.

Vort, in the constitution there is a supremacy clause in fed vs state. I assume that God's Law is always supreme over man's law. You can't honestly believe that if the feds passed a law that required all men to hunt down and kill people with green hair that God would go along with it.

[foreverafter]

I heard that Joseph Smith married all of his plural wives only in private sealing ceremonies & not "legally" because it was against the law of the land. Also, the Proclamation states that those who are "lawfully" wedded, (meaning according to the laws of God) are justified to be intimate. They purposely left out "legally".

For it's possible to be legally married & still commit adultery. The most important part is "lawfully", according to the laws of God.

I also agree that God's law is always supreme over man's law. And God does not honor or recognize the corrupt & evil laws of men.

Edited June 22, 2009 by foreverafter

[Rico]

Furthermore, Vort, you are saying that God will confirm to man's laws. I am confused. Who is supreme, man or God?

[talisyn]

Ok, now I am going to give a real live example of this.

A man and a woman are both married to other people in their home country of the Philippines. They go off and work in another country. They fall in love, divorce their spouses and get married in this other country. Their home country, the Philippines, doesn't have divorce and in fact, doesn't recognize foreign divorces of its citizens. In other words, in the Philippines, they are still married to their original spouses. This couple then goes to the temple in a 3rd country and gets sealed together.

When they go back to the Philippines, they are still legally married to another spouse, if they are intimate with each other while in Philippines, they can arrested for adultery, but what is the church stance? They are lawfully married in another jurisdiction.

Also, judging from the posts here, if they both went back to their original spouses and were intimate, that would be legal? How would that fit in with the doctrine of the Church? It's not adulterous by the law of the land, but ???? They would be violating their covenants when sealed, right?

As you answer this, you might want to revisit original answers to the original post....

I think this couple has issues that go far beyond getting sealed and would probably benefit from serious prayer/reflection/and counseling.

[foreverafter]

Ok, now I am going to give a real live example of this.

A man and a woman are both married to other people in their home country of the Philippines. They go off and work in another country. They fall in love, divorce their spouses and get married in this other country. Their home country, the Philippines, doesn't have divorce and in fact, doesn't recognize foreign divorces of its citizens. In other words, in the Philippines, they are still married to their original spouses. This couple then goes to the temple in a 3rd country and gets sealed together.

When they go back to the Philippines, they are still legally married to another spouse, if they are intimate with each other while in Philippines, they can arrested for adultery, but what is the church stance? They are lawfully married in another jurisdiction.

Also, judging from the posts here, if they both went back to their original spouses and were intimate, that would be legal? How would that fit in with the doctrine of the Church? It's not adulterous by the law of the land, but ???? They would be violating their covenants when sealed, right?

I believe this couple's remarriage is probably not valid, especially if they abandoned faithful spouses.

They are the ones that maybe falsely declared they were worthy to enter the temple & remarry, not the leaders, & even if the leaders knew of the other spouses, different leaders have different opinions that can be wrong & not a justification to go ahead with something, so we must always & only go by what the Prophets teach about these issues & they do not allow someone to leave a faithful spouse & remarry another, even if many seem to be getting away with it today.

Edited June 22, 2009 by foreverafter

[Rico]

While this is one particular case, it's actually quite common.

[deseretgov]

Vort, in the constitution there is a supremacy clause in fed vs state. I assume that God's Law is always supreme over man's law. You can't honestly believe that if the feds passed a law that required all men to hunt down and kill people with green hair that God would go along with it.

I believe there is an answer to this in the scriptures, or maybe a lesson manual. God would expect us to follow mans laws, but the leaders who made those laws would be held accountable for the sins committed because of that law.