Sign in to follow this  
PrinceofLight2000

Misinterpreted scripture in Deuteronomy.

Recommended Posts

Deuteronomy 22

13 ¶ If any man take a wife, and go in unto her, and hate her,

14 And give occasions of speech against her, and bring up an evil name upon her, and say, I took this woman, and when I came to her, I found her not a maid:

15 Then shall the father of the damsel, and her mother, take and bring forth the tokens of the damsel’s virginity unto the elders of the city in the gate:

16 And the damsel’s father shall say unto the elders, I gave my daughter unto this man to wife, and he hateth her;

17 And, lo, he hath given occasions of speech against her, saying, I found not thy daughter a maid; and yet these are the tokens of my daughter’s virginity. And they shall spread the cloth before the elders of the city.

18 And the elders of that city shall take that man and chastise him;

19 And they shall amerce him in an hundred shekels of silver, and give them unto the father of the damsel, because he hath brought up an evil name upon a virgin of Israel: and she shall be his wife; he may not put her away all his days.

20 But if this thing be true, and the tokens of virginity be not found for the damsel:

21 Then they shall bring out the damsel to the door of her father’s house, and the men of her city shall stone her with stones that she die: because she hath wrought folly in Israel, to play the whore in her father’s house: so shalt thou put evil away from among you.

The question I had in mind is whether or not (in the days of the OT) a marriage is invalidated if the daughter is not a virgin (has had sex). This would imply that any woman who has had sex in any previous marriage cannot re-marry.

However, I'm thinking it's referring to the woman being married to the man under false pretenses of her being a virgin.

Also, that picture has to be the biggest paraphrase I have ever seen, haha.

Edited by PrinceofLight2000

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I meant, what's the context of the photo. I'm able to look up the scripture on my own.

Oh. Well, as Snow noticed before I did and upon looking at what's going on in the background, it appears to be some sort of gay rights protest. I see a sign advertising a Unitarian Universalist church and one that says "LET US MAR[RY]". So that's what it looks to be.

Edit: Rainbow-colored flags. It's DEFINITELY gay rights. lol.

Edited by PrinceofLight2000

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As Wing said you are best off asking a Rabbi.

Just so you know, LDS eat non-kosher meat, enjoy things from the ocean without scales, mix seeds in the field, wear mixed fiber clothing, let cattle graze with other cattle, shave our heads or cut the corners of our beards, do not kill children who curse their parents, do not prohibit marital relations during a period, not stone people who blaspheme, do not have a period of ritual uncleanness during menstruation or after child birth, do not sacrifice doves or sheep or even goats or bullocks at the altar, do not require circumcision, and do not require tassels on our garments or cloaks with or without blue threads.

Nor do we necessarily have a perspective on these.

Edited by Dravin

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My point is that if this is a sign being held by a gay person at an anti-LDS rally, then they're pretty stupid, since LDS who marry in the temple are usually (not always, but usually) virgins. If it's a sign being held by a gay person at an event having nothing to do with the LDS, then why do we care?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As Wing said you are best off asking a Rabbi.

Just so you know, LDS eat non-kosher meat, enjoy things from the ocean without scales, mix seeds in the field, wear mixed fiber clothing, let cattle graze with other cattle, shave our heads or cut the corners of our beards, do not kill children who curse their parents, do not prohibit marital relations during a period, not stone people who blaspheme, do not have a period of ritual uncleanness during menstruation or after child birth, do not sacrifice doves or sheep or even goats or bullocks at the altar, do not require circumcision, and do not require tassels on our garments or cloaks with or without blue threads.

Nor do we necessarily have a perspective on these.

Yeah, I know. I'm LDS too.

Looking at the back ground and seeing a sign that say's" let us marry", and the rainbow flag in the guys pocket, I'm going to guess this was a gay marriage rally. I could be wrong though.

Yup.

My point is that if this is a sign being held by a gay person at an anti-LDS rally, then they're pretty stupid, since LDS who marry in the temple are usually (not always, but usually) virgins. If it's a sign being held by a gay person at an event having nothing to do with the LDS, then why do we care?

I entirely agree with you, but that wasn't my question. I'm gonna refer everybody back up to my second post in this thread. I'm trying to get a handle on what this actually means since apparently people love to twist it around every which way, and I figured you guys might know something about it since I can't find anything to read on it. Edited by PrinceofLight2000

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I entirely agree with you, but that wasn't my question. I'm gonna refer everybody back up to my second post in this thread.

The question I had in mind is whether or not a marriage is invalidated if the daughter is not a virgin (has had sex). This would imply that any woman who has had sex in any previous marriage cannot re-marry.

As Dravin pointed out, this teaching was given under the Law of Moses, which LDS believe has been fulfilled in Christ. If it were a problem, I doubt that the Brethren would allow women to be married in the temple after a previous civil marriage or after a cancelled previous sealing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As Dravin pointed out, this teaching was given under the Law of Moses, which LDS believe has been fulfilled in Christ. If it were a problem, I doubt that the Brethren would allow women to be married in the temple after a previous civil marriage or after a cancelled previous sealing.

I got that, you didn't have to repeat yourself. Again, I'm trying to find out what it means relative to the days of the Old Testament.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I got that, you didn't have to repeat yourself. Again, I'm trying to find out what it means relative to the days of the Old Testament.

Your wording was unclear. You were speaking in present tense.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yet another example of horribly brutal and violent men blaming God for their immoral behavior.

Are you sure? I thought it was more on the order of not eating shellfish.

BTW, love that lobster!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I got that, you didn't have to repeat yourself. Again, I'm trying to find out what it means relative to the days of the Old Testament.

Previously married women were not expected to be virgins. There are stories within the Bible of women married more than once, so it doesn't seem to be a problem.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What's the context? For the faithful LDS, the scripture is pretty much irrelevant.

Also, what's the point?

Best response so far, Wingnut. Before answering a question, seek first to understand the question. Then, answer the question that needs to be answered by the Spirit. Many times, questions we encounter are simply veiled suggestions or accusations. Sometimes questions are intended to conceal motives and intents. Sometimes they're intended convey a spirit of impartiality when the mind is already made up.

There is no real question posed here, but there are some assumptions being voiced. First, the picture was taken at a "legalize gay marriage" demonstration somewhere, most likely California. The scripture cited is being used to convey a message that Christians don't follow the Bible, so why should it apply to homosexuals? The sign is being used to conceal the face of the one carrying it.

The individual posting it here says they're too "tired" (read: lazy) to do their own homework and research into the history of ancient Israel. The title of the post tells us he has already formed an opinion: that Christians misinterpret Deuteronomy. The individual is just inviting you to step into a situation that may well be contentious.

Without taking the bait laid in the trap, we can simply answer that, if the Lord commanded people to be executed for sexual sins, adultery, fornication, cross-dressing--all for the common good of Israel in ancient times, he must consider those to be serious issues.

Morality, marriage, family, are important to us and to society in general--for the common good. Latter-day saints are prepared to step up and defend them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

...if the Lord commanded people to be executed for sexual sins, adultery, fornication, cross-dressing--all for the common good of Israel in ancient times, he must consider those to be serious issues.

Bingo.

Also, it was the husband's responsibility to bring the fact his wife isn't a virgin to her parents. If the husband does not "hate" (read: despise) his wife, he isn't under obligation to tell. There is room for forgiveness in the law, methinks.

However, we have to remember that Israel was under the (very demanding) Law of Moses, given because Israel was "stiffnecked". Stubborn, rebellious children have to be met with harsh discipline, or they do not listen.

Edited by Matthew0059
fixed phrasing

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bingo.

Also, it was the husband's responsibility to bring the fact his wife isn't a virgin to her parents. If the husband does not "hate" (read: despise) his wife, he isn't under obligation to tell. There is room for forgiveness in the law, methinks.

However, we have to remember that Israel was under the (very demanding) Law of Moses, given because Israel was "stiffnecked". Stubborn, rebellious children have to be met with harsh discipline, or they do not listen.

Yes, and this may make more sense when people realize the comments were made of marriages that were pre-arranged.

It seems they base certain "divorce" related things on whether or not a girl is a virgin when she gets married. Maybe the line of thought is that the girl lost her virginity in the marriage and therefore is due that "price" back, perhaps as a symbol, since it can really never be repaid. The family would not be allowed to collect that same price (price of a virgin) the next time she was married.

However, if the two love each other and wish to remain married it's a non-issue.

The stoning seems to only come in play if the family lied to get a virgin price but it turns out she really wasn't. This seems consistent with consequences of these nature in other areas of the law of Moses.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Best response so far, Wingnut. Before answering a question, seek first to understand the question. Then, answer the question that needs to be answered by the Spirit. Many times, questions we encounter are simply veiled suggestions or accusations. Sometimes questions are intended to conceal motives and intents. Sometimes they're intended convey a spirit of impartiality when the mind is already made up.

There is no real question posed here, but there are some assumptions being voiced. First, the picture was taken at a "legalize gay marriage" demonstration somewhere, most likely California. The scripture cited is being used to convey a message that Christians don't follow the Bible, so why should it apply to homosexuals? The sign is being used to conceal the face of the one carrying it.

The individual posting it here says they're too "tired" (read: lazy) to do their own homework and research into the history of ancient Israel. The title of the post tells us he has already formed an opinion: that Christians misinterpret Deuteronomy. The individual is just inviting you to step into a situation that may well be contentious.

Without taking the bait laid in the trap, we can simply answer that, if the Lord commanded people to be executed for sexual sins, adultery, fornication, cross-dressing--all for the common good of Israel in ancient times, he must consider those to be serious issues.

Morality, marriage, family, are important to us and to society in general--for the common good. Latter-day saints are prepared to step up and defend them.

Did you bother to read past the first and second posts?

1. I'm LDS.

2. Last night I WAS tired, and because of that I WAS researching, as I stated earlier. I couldn't find any explanations for this passage on any LDS sites. So I thought the posters here would be able to enlighten me on the passage.

3. I DON'T think Christians misinterpret Deuteronomy, I was making note of how these gay rights activists were making a gigantic paraphrase to use the Bible for their own warped ends. I'm on your side here, way to jump to huge conclusions based on the thread title alone.

4. All I was trying to do was to get someone to clarify on what exactly the passage meant. Does it mean what it says, or is there some other overarching principle that it implies?

Edited by PrinceofLight2000

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, and this may make more sense when people realize the comments were made of marriages that were pre-arranged.

It seems they base certain "divorce" related things on whether or not a girl is a virgin when she gets married. Maybe the line of thought is that the girl lost her virginity in the marriage and therefore is due that "price" back, perhaps as a symbol, since it can really never be repaid. The family would not be allowed to collect that same price (price of a virgin) the next time she was married.

However, if the two love each other and wish to remain married it's a non-issue.

The stoning seems to only come in play if the family lied to get a virgin price but it turns out she really wasn't. This seems consistent with consequences of these nature in other areas of the law of Moses.

This is exactly what I was wondering about earlier, thank you for the input, Justice.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

While the old law seems like it was more difficult, the law we live now is actually the more difficult one...it is a higher law. For example the law under Moses stated an eye for an eye, while the higher law says we must forgive others if we are to be forgiven.

Sometimes it can be much much harder to forgive than to do to you what you did to me. Don't ask me how I know this...I'll deny everything.:cool:

Wait a minute we aren't allowed to execute our children for cursing their parents anymore?

oops :eek:

Edited by jayanna

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The picture in the OP is an ancient canard that says, in a nutshell, that if we are willing to explain away any of the 613 commands of the Books of Moses, then we have no business invoking them to condemn anyone. Such silliness works great on placards and in very short, off-the-cuff verbal exchanges, because explaining why the argument is foolish cannot be done in 30-seconds--especially when the discussion is shrill and confrontational.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The picture in the OP is an ancient canard that says, in a nutshell, that if we are willing to explain away any of the 613 commands of the Books of Moses, then we have no business invoking them to condemn anyone. Such silliness works great on placards and in very short, off-the-cuff verbal exchanges, because explaining why the argument is foolish cannot be done in 30-seconds--especially when the discussion is shrill and confrontational.

Well, it does make a very good point. Scripture is often misquoted and taken out of context to support both sides of an argument. I find the worst offenders are those arguing for the text, though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'll make this short and simple. I found this picture on another forum i go to.

Posted Image

I'd like to hear some LDS-perspective responses, since I'm too tired to brainstorm. =P

Ellis T. Rasmussen stated it perfectly:

22:13-30 - If any man take a wife, and go in unto her, and hate her, And give occasions of speech against her, and bring up an evil name upon her

A man must not impute unchastity to his wife or commit adultery with another's wife or with a virgin. If rape was committed in a field, out of the city, so that a damsel's outcry would not be heard, he who does it is to be considered guilty, but she is free. If a man was intimate with a virgin not betrothed, he must pay a heavy fine, marry her, and never "put her away." Finally, the prohibition against incest was reiterated (Deut. 22:13-30 and fn.). (Latter-day Saint Commentary on the Old Testament by Ellis T. Rasmussen, p.184)

Hugh B. Nibley stated the obvious but you have to admire his texture comparisons:

Anyone who takes advantage of a virgin must marry her and pay her father handsomely, for "he hath humbled her" (Deuteronomy 22:28-29). One who is just married is not permitted to go to war, for by law he must stay home one year and "cheer up" his bride (Deuteronomy 24:5). It is base to question the virginity of a bride (Deuteronomy 22:13-30), and one who refuses to beget issue by his brother's widow is openly held in contempt, though he cannot be punished—he has offended her human feelings (Deuteronomy 25:5-10). (Approaching Zion by Hugh Nibley, Don E. Norton)

I wonder these individuals understand what could happen to Mary, the Mother of Jesus the Christ. Remember in Matthew where it stated Mary was pregnant and espoused to Joseph? Daniel Ludlow made a point about this interesting remark and comparing it to Deuteronomy:

1:24 Mary was espoused to Joseph. They were not married but were promised to each other under the strictest terms. Mary was virtually regarded as the wife of Joseph, and unfaithfulness on her part during the espousal period was punishable by death (Deuteronomy 22:23, 24). During the espousal period, the bride-elect lived with her family or friends, and all communication between herself and her promised husband was carried on through a friend. When Joseph learned of Mary's prospective maternity and knew he was not the father, he had two alternatives: (1) he could demand that Mary submit to a public trial and judgment, which even at that late point in Jewish history may have resulted in Mary's death; or (2) he could privately sever the espousal contract before witnesses. Joseph obviously chose the most merciful of the two alternatives. He could have reacted selfishly and with bitterness when he learned that Mary was expecting, and it is a profound witness to Joseph's character that he chose to annul the espousal privately. Of this, Elder James E. Talmage has written:

"Joseph was a just man, a strict observer of the law, yet no harsh extremist; moreover he loved Mary and would save her all unnecessary humiliation, whatever might be his own sorrow and suffering. For Mary's sake he dreaded the thought of publicity; and therefore determined to have the espousal annulled with such privacy as the law allowed." (Jesus the Christ, p. 84.) It may be that the Lord designed such an experience to test Joseph, and if that be the case, Joseph proved faithful. After Joseph had made his decision, then the angel visited him and directed that he should proceed and take Mary as his wife. Mary's high station was known before she was born (Mosiah 3:8; Alma 7:10; 1 Ne. 11:15, 18-21; Isaiah 7:14), and Joseph no doubt was foreordained to the honored station that he held, for the Prophet Joseph Smith taught that "every man who has a calling to minister to the inhabitants of the world was ordained to that very purpose in the Grand Council of heaven before this world was." (Teachings, p. 365. Italics added.) Surely Joseph was a noble soul in premortality to be blessed with the signal honor of coming to earth and acting as the legal guardian of the Son of the Eternal Father in the flesh. (LTJA, p. 22.) (Companion to Your Study of the New Testament: The Four Gospels by Daniel H. Ludlow, p.27-28)

I think you got it by now what is the right answer to this scripture reference. Edited by Hemidakota

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this