When followers of a church find a saying of Jesus that is too hard, it is thrust aside without too much effort at justification. This is especially true of the LDS church, divorce in first two decades of its history was easy to obtain, especially in respect of plural wives changing their allegiance. I would have hoped that a church claiming to restore the primitive Church of Christ might at least begin with practicing the principals he espoused or at least rationalise why it would not be following them.
There are only four New Testament divorce references, Mark 10:5-12, Jesus was asked by the Pharisees, Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife? Jesus explains until Moses it wasn’t. He reiterates the teaching ‘What God has joined together, let no one separate’. He further instructs his disciples that any husband who marries another woman commits adultery against his wife, likewise the woman. Matt 14:4 John the Baptist was imprisoned by Herod because he said it was unlawful for him to have married his brother Philip’s wife, Herodias. Matt 19:7 is virtually a repeat of Mark. In 1 Cor 7:10 Paul reaffirms that separating should not occur, if it happens then they should remain unmarried and endeavour to be reconciled. On 9th February 1831 in Kirtland, Ohio, Joseph Smith records Jesus Christ as condemning any who have left their companions for the sake of adultery.
What Contextual information is there?
I read various sources about biblical marriage, the following is taken from a web site called equal voices, The laws related to virgins and inheritance suggests that marriage is about procreation, not for the sake of the children, but for the preservation of inheritance and property within the household, and tribe. The woman becomes the property of her husband at the time of the engagement, and any transgression towards her is against the value of his property. The Israelites of bible times were subsistence farmers, and everyone in the family contributed to the sowing, growing, reaping and preparation of food. There were different roles, but they were all interconnected. Therefore, marriage is about protecting the household’s food supply
The latter books (Old Testament) see the development of laws designed to protect women from being cast off by a dissatisfied husband. The inclusion of these laws shows us that some men were not looking after women with integrity. Israel was a patriarchal society, where the men held all the power and authority. Only men can issue a certificate of divorce, and only men were involved in the arrangement of a marriage. This left the women in a vulnerable position. The laws of Israel consistently insist on justice and mercy for the poor and oppressed. In this way, the laws against divorce (Deut 22-24) were designed to protect women from being cast off, because of ‘the hardness of men’s hearts’ (Matt 19:8). Exodus 21:10-11 gives us a clear indication of the biblical basis for marriage, ironically by providing the just reasons for a woman to seek a divorce. It says ‘If he takes another wife to himself, he shall not diminish the food, clothing or marital rights of the first wife. And if he does not do these three things for her, she shall go out without debt, without payment of money.’
Adultery was a particularly serious sin, requiring the death of the transgressors, divorce and remarriage are classified by Jesus as adultery. So where is the discussion, where is the revelation that reasons why it is no longer viewed the same way as Jesus?
Seek the Wisdom of Jesus as Robin Meyer advises. Jesus wants married couples to honour their vows to each other, to cleave and be one flesh, to be chaste within their relationship, to be true to one another, not to give up too easily, to keep a committment. I entered marriage on that basis and fortunately we have managed to maintain those vows. I understand there is a whole debate to be had over circumstances that perhaps should permit divorce but as Jesus stated, from the beginning it was intended that a man and wife should remain together. How is it that Christianity has moved away from this position, in England we had Henry VIII needing an heir, according to the church, they were in the right to maintain Jesus’s view. Henry arguably should not have dishonoured Jesus’s views, neither should Christian religions have folded to public opinion. Full respect to those denominations that have endeavoured to uphold the teachings of Jesus despite the ridicule of the world. Therefore, should not the LDS church purporting to be the restored Church of Christ be explaining in a revelation why divorce is permitted?
Conclusion It seems that Jesus’s view is now considered as guidance, rather than lawful, he refused to stone the adulteress and followers of ‘The Way’ need respect his stance. Jesus’s wisdom extends to the source of divorce beginning by thinking of other partners, ie ‘committing adultery in one’s heart, preceding the physical act’. If he is not willing to sanction stoning, is he tacitly accepting divorce? His very few statements appear to make it unacceptable. I can understand there are arguments to be had over circumstances of abuse in relationships, what I believe Jesus is saying, is that two people committed to following God and honouring each other, should hopefully be able to find a way to succeed together. Perhaps, one of the main reasons for marriages failing, is that one or both partners do not embrace serving God, their partner, then themselves, in that order.