Doctrine on divorce

For discussing the Church, Gospel of Jesus Christ, Mormonism, etc.
Post Reply
nomnomnom
Hi, I'm new.
Posts: 1

Doctrine on divorce

Post by nomnomnom »

Hey! So my situation is that I met a non member who is currently investigating the church and we have fell in love and feel that God intends for us to be together. But the only problem is that 9 years ago his wife left him and has not been compliant in signing papers for a disillusion. He has begun the process again to file for a divorce and my question is, is it violating the Lords will if he and I are dating now? Or should we wait for the divorce?

BackBlast
captain of 100
Posts: 570

Re: Doctrine on divorce

Post by BackBlast »

nomnomnom wrote: March 21st, 2017, 11:06 am Hey! So my situation is that I met a non member who is currently investigating the church and we have fell in love and feel that God intends for us to be together. But the only problem is that 9 years ago his wife left him and has not been compliant in signing papers for a disillusion. He has begun the process again to file for a divorce and my question is, is it violating the Lords will if he and I are dating now? Or should we wait for the divorce?
It is a little tough to say if it is violating the Lord's will. This is a personal situation that you and he are involved in. I know little of the particulars other than the little you have shared here. I'm not saying this to dig for more details, but, what do you think? You are as entitled as anyone to His will in this matter.

If it were me, I do would my best to be square with the laws of the land and my conscience. I also think that the Lord would smile on you doing your best to be as clean about the process as you can be. As you go about this process, listen in your heart for any feeling of nervousness that is trying to signal a warning to you. That would be my first sign that something is amiss. That is my general opinion.

Good luck.

Matchmaker
captain of 1,000
Posts: 2266

Re: Doctrine on divorce

Post by Matchmaker »

Please be careful in this situation. I have personal experience in this area.

Wait for the divorce before dating him. Move far away from him if you have to. The Church is very clear about not dating married men. If you spend enough time dating and being in love with a married man who you are not free to marry, you will end up committing adultery with him and lose your church membership over it. Don't sell your birthright for a bowl of porridge! If he wanted to be divorced that badly, he would have found a way to make it happen 8 years ago. He doesn't need his wife's OK to divorce her. He doesn't need her to sign the papers either, though it is easier if she cooperates. If not, he can proceed a different way.

paulrobots
captain of 100
Posts: 374

Re: Doctrine on divorce

Post by paulrobots »

It sounds like you are dating a married man. 8 years with no thought of making it official untill he met you? Baloney. How many times has he used that line? You are not the first in 8 years.

It sounds like a situation that is more likely to end poorly than one that will end well. Good luck, I hope the decisions you make will be informed and blessed.

User avatar
shadow
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 10542
Location: St. George

Re: Doctrine on divorce

Post by shadow »

Matchmaker wrote: March 21st, 2017, 4:57 pm If he wanted to be divorced that badly, he would have found a way to make it happen 8 years ago. He doesn't need his wife's OK to divorce her. He doesn't need her to sign the papers either, though it is easier if she cooperates. If not, he can proceed a different way.
Maybe they're in a different country. Some countries make it near impossible to divorce. But the advice is great- stay away until he's no longer a married man!

brianj
captain of 1,000
Posts: 4066
Location: Vineyard, Utah

Re: Doctrine on divorce

Post by brianj »

I would strongly encourage you to discuss this with your Bishop and not go out on a date with him until you do so. I have been told that if a man and a woman are involved in an illicit relationship that leads to divorce then they won't be permitted to be sealed. Since this guy and his wife separated years ago this probably doesn't apply, but your Bishop would be the best person to get advice from.

User avatar
Elizabeth
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 11796
Location: East Coast Australia

Re: Doctrine on divorce

Post by Elizabeth »

Wait till he is legally single.
nomnomnom wrote: March 21st, 2017, 11:06 am Or should we wait for the divorce?

Ezra
captain of 1,000
Posts: 4357
Location: Not telling

Re: Doctrine on divorce

Post by Ezra »

Ya I don't think the lord really cares about a some paper that some man said you need to have to get married or divorced.

What happened befor paper? Befor government?

God being the same yesterday today tomorrow didn't care doesn't care won't care.

Matchmaker
captain of 1,000
Posts: 2266

Re: Doctrine on divorce

Post by Matchmaker »

brianj wrote: March 22nd, 2017, 12:11 pm I would strongly encourage you to discuss this with your Bishop and not go out on a date with him until you do so. I have been told that if a man and a woman are involved in an illicit relationship that leads to divorce then they won't be permitted to be sealed. Since this guy and his wife separated years ago this probably doesn't apply, but your Bishop would be the best person to get advice from.
I was told nearly the same thing from my Bishop 35 years ago. You are playing with fire here that could have eternal consequences. You had better talk to your Bishop before you see this guy again.

brianj
captain of 1,000
Posts: 4066
Location: Vineyard, Utah

Re: Doctrine on divorce

Post by brianj »

Ezra wrote: March 23rd, 2017, 2:28 am Ya I don't think the lord really cares about a some paper that some man said you need to have to get married or divorced.

What happened befor paper? Befor government?

God being the same yesterday today tomorrow didn't care doesn't care won't care.
Is that whole thing about obeying, honoring, and sustaining the law nonsense?

Why should we care about what happened beforeE paper and beforeE government? We don't live in that time! By that reasoning why don't we follow the law of Moses? Why did the Jews care about the law of Moses since that law didn't exist before Moses?

I believe that the president of the church, his counselors, and the members of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles are prophets. As prophets they give us doctrine an instructions for our day. If the policy of the church is that a piece of paper, or an entry in a computer database, means that we are married and we need to honor that marriage then I will not jeopardize my salvation or that of others by telling them to do what they want, ignore the commandments, and ignore the law.

In the LDS church, if your spouse leaves you and files for divorce, you are not eligible to participate in any single adult activities until the divorce order has been signed by a judge. Why? Because until that order is signed you are still married! The sister who wrote the original post should consider this point, as should you Ezra.

Ezra
captain of 1,000
Posts: 4357
Location: Not telling

Re: Doctrine on divorce

Post by Ezra »

brianj wrote: March 23rd, 2017, 10:14 am
Ezra wrote: March 23rd, 2017, 2:28 am Ya I don't think the lord really cares about a some paper that some man said you need to have to get married or divorced.

What happened befor paper? Befor government?

God being the same yesterday today tomorrow didn't care doesn't care won't care.
Is that whole thing about obeying, honoring, and sustaining the law nonsense?

Why should we care about what happened beforeE paper and beforeE government? We don't live in that time! By that reasoning why don't we follow the law of Moses? Why did the Jews care about the law of Moses since that law didn't exist before Moses?

I believe that the president of the church, his counselors, and the members of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles are prophets. As prophets they give us doctrine an instructions for our day. If the policy of the church is that a piece of paper, or an entry in a computer database, means that we are married and we need to honor that marriage then I will not jeopardize my salvation or that of others by telling them to do what they want, ignore the commandments, and ignore the law.

In the LDS church, if your spouse leaves you and files for divorce, you are not eligible to participate in any single adult activities until the divorce order has been signed by a judge. Why? Because until that order is signed you are still married! The sister who wrote the original post should consider this point, as should you Ezra.
The scriptures don't say to obey all laws or uphold and sustain them. They specify constitutional law only.

Which the constitution specifically endorsed common law. If your not familiar with common law you should study it.

brianj
captain of 1,000
Posts: 4066
Location: Vineyard, Utah

Re: Doctrine on divorce

Post by brianj »

Ezra wrote: March 23rd, 2017, 11:17 am
brianj wrote: March 23rd, 2017, 10:14 am
Ezra wrote: March 23rd, 2017, 2:28 am Ya I don't think the lord really cares about a some paper that some man said you need to have to get married or divorced.

What happened befor paper? Befor government?

God being the same yesterday today tomorrow didn't care doesn't care won't care.
Is that whole thing about obeying, honoring, and sustaining the law nonsense?

Why should we care about what happened beforeE paper and beforeE government? We don't live in that time! By that reasoning why don't we follow the law of Moses? Why did the Jews care about the law of Moses since that law didn't exist before Moses?

I believe that the president of the church, his counselors, and the members of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles are prophets. As prophets they give us doctrine an instructions for our day. If the policy of the church is that a piece of paper, or an entry in a computer database, means that we are married and we need to honor that marriage then I will not jeopardize my salvation or that of others by telling them to do what they want, ignore the commandments, and ignore the law.

In the LDS church, if your spouse leaves you and files for divorce, you are not eligible to participate in any single adult activities until the divorce order has been signed by a judge. Why? Because until that order is signed you are still married! The sister who wrote the original post should consider this point, as should you Ezra.
The scriptures don't say to obey all laws or uphold and sustain them. They specify constitutional law only.

Which the constitution specifically endorsed common law. If your not familiar with common law you should study it.
At times you seem to have taken offense at people disagreeing with you or disputing what you say, so I hope you won't take offense at my choice to look up the scriptures, which I opened. I went into the D&C and Pearl of Great Price volume and turned to the Articles of Faith. I am missing it; will you please show me where in the 12th Article of Faith the word "constitutional" appears?

Going into the Doctrine and Covenants, section 58 verses 21 and 22 says we are to obey the law of the land with no mention of only obeying Constitutional laws. Did I miss it somewhere?

In the October 1975 general conference N. Eldon Tanner, First Counselor in the First Presidency said:
There are many who question the constitutionality of certain acts passed by their respective governments, even though such laws have been established by the highest courts in the land as being constitutional, and they feel to defy and disobey the law.

Abraham Lincoln once observed: “Bad laws, if they exist, should be repealed as soon as possible; still, while they continue in force, they should be religiously observed.”

This is the attitude of the Church in regard to law observance. We agree with the author of the following statement:

“In reality the man who defies or flouts the law is like the proverbial fool who saws away the plank on which he sits, and a disrespect or disregard for law is always the first sign of a disintegrating society. Respect for law is the most fundamental of all social virtues, for the alternative to the rule of law is that of violence and anarchy.” (Case and Comment, March/April issue, 1965, p. 20.)
I have now given you two witnesses, Joseph Smith and President Tanner, stating that we are to obey the law of the land without stating that we are only to obey the laws that we believe are constitutional.


We have a choice here. We can follow the principles taught by you, or we can follow the principles in the scriptures and in general conference. We can't do both since they conflict. I am sincerely curious to hear your answer to the following question: with scriptures and at least one member of the First Presidency telling us to obey all laws, and you telling us to only obey laws we believe are constitutional, why should we elevate your counsel above the scriptures and apostles?

Ezra
captain of 1,000
Posts: 4357
Location: Not telling

Re: Doctrine on divorce

Post by Ezra »

brianj wrote: March 23rd, 2017, 9:08 pm
Ezra wrote: March 23rd, 2017, 11:17 am
brianj wrote: March 23rd, 2017, 10:14 am
Ezra wrote: March 23rd, 2017, 2:28 am Ya I don't think the lord really cares about a some paper that some man said you need to have to get married or divorced.

What happened befor paper? Befor government?

God being the same yesterday today tomorrow didn't care doesn't care won't care.
Is that whole thing about obeying, honoring, and sustaining the law nonsense?

Why should we care about what happened beforeE paper and beforeE government? We don't live in that time! By that reasoning why don't we follow the law of Moses? Why did the Jews care about the law of Moses since that law didn't exist before Moses?

I believe that the president of the church, his counselors, and the members of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles are prophets. As prophets they give us doctrine an instructions for our day. If the policy of the church is that a piece of paper, or an entry in a computer database, means that we are married and we need to honor that marriage then I will not jeopardize my salvation or that of others by telling them to do what they want, ignore the commandments, and ignore the law.

In the LDS church, if your spouse leaves you and files for divorce, you are not eligible to participate in any single adult activities until the divorce order has been signed by a judge. Why? Because until that order is signed you are still married! The sister who wrote the original post should consider this point, as should you Ezra.
The scriptures don't say to obey all laws or uphold and sustain them. They specify constitutional law only.

Which the constitution specifically endorsed common law. If your not familiar with common law you should study it.
At times you seem to have taken offense at people disagreeing with you or disputing what you say, so I hope you won't take offense at my choice to look up the scriptures, which I opened. I went into the D&C and Pearl of Great Price volume and turned to the Articles of Faith. I am missing it; will you please show me where in the 12th Article of Faith the word "constitutional" appears?

Going into the Doctrine and Covenants, section 58 verses 21 and 22 says we are to obey the law of the land with no mention of only obeying Constitutional laws. Did I miss it somewhere?

In the October 1975 general conference N. Eldon Tanner, First Counselor in the First Presidency said:
There are many who question the constitutionality of certain acts passed by their respective governments, even though such laws have been established by the highest courts in the land as being constitutional, and they feel to defy and disobey the law.

Abraham Lincoln once observed: “Bad laws, if they exist, should be repealed as soon as possible; still, while they continue in force, they should be religiously observed.”

This is the attitude of the Church in regard to law observance. We agree with the author of the following statement:

“In reality the man who defies or flouts the law is like the proverbial fool who saws away the plank on which he sits, and a disrespect or disregard for law is always the first sign of a disintegrating society. Respect for law is the most fundamental of all social virtues, for the alternative to the rule of law is that of violence and anarchy.” (Case and Comment, March/April issue, 1965, p. 20.)
I have now given you two witnesses, Joseph Smith and President Tanner, stating that we are to obey the law of the land without stating that we are only to obey the laws that we believe are constitutional.


We have a choice here. We can follow the principles taught by you, or we can follow the principles in the scriptures and in general conference. We can't do both since they conflict. I am sincerely curious to hear your answer to the following question: with scriptures and at least one member of the First Presidency telling us to obey all laws, and you telling us to only obey laws we believe are constitutional, why should we elevate your counsel above the scriptures and apostles?

You will find it in d&c 98.

4 And now, verily I say unto you concerning the laws of the land, it is my will that my people should observe to do all things whatsoever I command them.

5 And that law of the land which is constitutional, supporting that principle of freedom in maintaining rights and privileges, belongs to all mankind, and is justifiable before me.

6 Therefore, I, the Lord, justify you, and your brethren of my church, in befriending that law which is the constitutional law of the land;

7 And as pertaining to law of man, whatsoever is more or less than this, cometh of evil.

Whatsoever is more then this. This meaning the constitutional laws of the land.

So yes we are to obey the laws of the land. As many have said and pointed out. But that's not the full instructions. more specifically the instructions are obey the laws of the land that are constitutional only. Anything more will cometh evil.

There are many examples and more explanation that is needed to really understand that.

First god endorsed the constitution with its original 10 amendments. Any amendments after those are not necessarily Gods will. Some could be.

Going away from the gold standard is a good example. It's constitutional now to have paper money. But we can plainly see the evil that has come from that amendment.

I have a talk from John Taylor. I wish I could find. I believe it's his 1914 or 1915 conference talk. Right after that amendment took place where he reiterated the need to follow constitutional laws only and calls out the membership for allowing the constitution to be changed and perverted. Maybe you can find that talk. I know it's from one of those 2 years.

That explain it better?

brianj
captain of 1,000
Posts: 4066
Location: Vineyard, Utah

Re: Doctrine on divorce

Post by brianj »

Ezra wrote: March 23rd, 2017, 9:58 pm You will find it in d&c 98.

4 And now, verily I say unto you concerning the laws of the land, it is my will that my people should observe to do all things whatsoever I command them.

5 And that law of the land which is constitutional, supporting that principle of freedom in maintaining rights and privileges, belongs to all mankind, and is justifiable before me.

6 Therefore, I, the Lord, justify you, and your brethren of my church, in befriending that law which is the constitutional law of the land;

7 And as pertaining to law of man, whatsoever is more or less than this, cometh of evil.

Whatsoever is more then this. This meaning the constitutional laws of the land.

So yes we are to obey the laws of the land. As many have said and pointed out. But that's not the full instructions. more specifically the instructions are obey the laws of the land that are constitutional only. Anything more will cometh evil.

There are many examples and more explanation that is needed to really understand that.

First god endorsed the constitution with its original 10 amendments. Any amendments after those are not necessarily Gods will. Some could be.

Going away from the gold standard is a good example. It's constitutional now to have paper money. But we can plainly see the evil that has come from that amendment.

I have a talk from John Taylor. I wish I could find. I believe it's his 1914 or 1915 conference talk. Right after that amendment took place where he reiterated the need to follow constitutional laws only and calls out the membership for allowing the constitution to be changed and perverted. Maybe you can find that talk. I know it's from one of those 2 years.

That explain it better?
So... you believe that every single person, regardless of what country they live in, is sinning by obeying local laws that don't conform to your interpretation of the US Constitution?

In the autumn 1995 general conference a temple was announced in Harrison, New York. The Harrison government refused to issue variances and fought in court to prevent the church from building the proposed temple, and in 2006 the church finally removed that temple from the official list of announced temples.

Do you believe that construction permits and zoning ordinances are constitutional? I don't recall anything within the Constitution explicitly permitting these regulations, but the church obeys those laws.

I get the impression that you don't have the courage to openly violate felony laws that you believe are unconstitutional because you don't want to face a long prison sentence. I will choose to obey the teachings of President Tanner, which would have been approved by President Kimball, and not risk years in prison by openly violating laws you consider unconstitutional.

Ezra
captain of 1,000
Posts: 4357
Location: Not telling

Re: Doctrine on divorce

Post by Ezra »

brianj wrote: March 23rd, 2017, 10:27 pm
Ezra wrote: March 23rd, 2017, 9:58 pm You will find it in d&c 98.

4 And now, verily I say unto you concerning the laws of the land, it is my will that my people should observe to do all things whatsoever I command them.

5 And that law of the land which is constitutional, supporting that principle of freedom in maintaining rights and privileges, belongs to all mankind, and is justifiable before me.

6 Therefore, I, the Lord, justify you, and your brethren of my church, in befriending that law which is the constitutional law of the land;

7 And as pertaining to law of man, whatsoever is more or less than this, cometh of evil.

Whatsoever is more then this. This meaning the constitutional laws of the land.

So yes we are to obey the laws of the land. As many have said and pointed out. But that's not the full instructions. more specifically the instructions are obey the laws of the land that are constitutional only. Anything more will cometh evil.

There are many examples and more explanation that is needed to really understand that.

First god endorsed the constitution with its original 10 amendments. Any amendments after those are not necessarily Gods will. Some could be.

Going away from the gold standard is a good example. It's constitutional now to have paper money. But we can plainly see the evil that has come from that amendment.

I have a talk from John Taylor. I wish I could find. I believe it's his 1914 or 1915 conference talk. Right after that amendment took place where he reiterated the need to follow constitutional laws only and calls out the membership for allowing the constitution to be changed and perverted. Maybe you can find that talk. I know it's from one of those 2 years.

That explain it better?
So... you believe that every single person, regardless of what country they live in, is sinning by obeying local laws that don't conform to your interpretation of the US Constitution?

In the autumn 1995 general conference a temple was announced in Harrison, New York. The Harrison government refused to issue variances and fought in court to prevent the church from building the proposed temple, and in 2006 the church finally removed that temple from the official list of announced temples.

Do you believe that construction permits and zoning ordinances are constitutional? I don't recall anything within the Constitution explicitly permitting these regulations, but the church obeys those laws.

I get the impression that you don't have the courage to openly violate felony laws that you believe are unconstitutional because you don't want to face a long prison sentence. I will choose to obey the teachings of President Tanner, which would have been approved by President Kimball, and not risk years in prison by openly violating laws you consider unconstitutional.
The 10th amendment allows for states to choose how and what they do in their states anything not specifically said in the constitution. As long as it doesn't infringe the constitutional rights.

So yes the states can have zoning laws and construction permits. I am not a big fan of anyone telling me what I can and can't do on my own property. But we the people can change those laws within the states or county in the state. Idaho county in Idaho has no building codes. I really like that. Wish more places did the same.

If the law of the land was to kill all Jews or turn them in for killing. Would you obey the laws? Many would out of fear. Not many wouldn't. That's what happened in Germany.

There are risks in not following or supporting unconstitutional laws. And there are risks in following them to. As we are judged by our works with government.

If the laws like many of our current laws are in direct violation to the gospel principles then yes. It's sin to follow the laws of the land.

But many will. Some won't.

I feel that it's sin to support abortions. I feel it's sin to rob from peter to pay Paul. So I don't support welfare. I feel it's sin to support illegal wars. I figured out how to legally not support those thing by legally not paying taxes.

What felony laws are unconstitutional in your mind? That comment makes no sense to me.

Niyr
captain of 100
Posts: 554

Re: Doctrine on divorce

Post by Niyr »

brianj wrote: March 23rd, 2017, 10:27 pm
Ezra wrote: March 23rd, 2017, 9:58 pm You will find it in d&c 98.

4 And now, verily I say unto you concerning the laws of the land, it is my will that my people should observe to do all things whatsoever I command them.

5 And that law of the land which is constitutional, supporting that principle of freedom in maintaining rights and privileges, belongs to all mankind, and is justifiable before me.

6 Therefore, I, the Lord, justify you, and your brethren of my church, in befriending that law which is the constitutional law of the land;

7 And as pertaining to law of man, whatsoever is more or less than this, cometh of evil.

Whatsoever is more then this. This meaning the constitutional laws of the land.

So yes we are to obey the laws of the land. As many have said and pointed out. But that's not the full instructions. more specifically the instructions are obey the laws of the land that are constitutional only. Anything more will cometh evil.

There are many examples and more explanation that is needed to really understand that.

First god endorsed the constitution with its original 10 amendments. Any amendments after those are not necessarily Gods will. Some could be.

Going away from the gold standard is a good example. It's constitutional now to have paper money. But we can plainly see the evil that has come from that amendment.

I have a talk from John Taylor. I wish I could find. I believe it's his 1914 or 1915 conference talk. Right after that amendment took place where he reiterated the need to follow constitutional laws only and calls out the membership for allowing the constitution to be changed and perverted. Maybe you can find that talk. I know it's from one of those 2 years.

That explain it better?
So... you believe that every single person, regardless of what country they live in, is sinning by obeying local laws that don't conform to your interpretation of the US Constitution?

In the autumn 1995 general conference a temple was announced in Harrison, New York. The Harrison government refused to issue variances and fought in court to prevent the church from building the proposed temple, and in 2006 the church finally removed that temple from the official list of announced temples.

Do you believe that construction permits and zoning ordinances are constitutional? I don't recall anything within the Constitution explicitly permitting these regulations, but the church obeys those laws.

I get the impression that you don't have the courage to openly violate felony laws that you believe are unconstitutional because you don't want to face a long prison sentence. I will choose to obey the teachings of President Tanner, which would have been approved by President Kimball, and not risk years in prison by openly violating laws you consider unconstitutional.
The Constitution outlines the federal government's power boundaries, and a few to the States when their power gets borrowed by the feds. States aren't restricted by the Bill of Rights (though education for the last 100 years has pushed this idea), and States can create zoning ordinances and require permits, if allowed by its own state constitution.

brianj
captain of 1,000
Posts: 4066
Location: Vineyard, Utah

Re: Doctrine on divorce

Post by brianj »

Ezra wrote: March 23rd, 2017, 11:05 pm
brianj wrote: March 23rd, 2017, 10:27 pm
Ezra wrote: March 23rd, 2017, 9:58 pm You will find it in d&c 98.

4 And now, verily I say unto you concerning the laws of the land, it is my will that my people should observe to do all things whatsoever I command them.

5 And that law of the land which is constitutional, supporting that principle of freedom in maintaining rights and privileges, belongs to all mankind, and is justifiable before me.

6 Therefore, I, the Lord, justify you, and your brethren of my church, in befriending that law which is the constitutional law of the land;

7 And as pertaining to law of man, whatsoever is more or less than this, cometh of evil.

Whatsoever is more then this. This meaning the constitutional laws of the land.

So yes we are to obey the laws of the land. As many have said and pointed out. But that's not the full instructions. more specifically the instructions are obey the laws of the land that are constitutional only. Anything more will cometh evil.

There are many examples and more explanation that is needed to really understand that.

First god endorsed the constitution with its original 10 amendments. Any amendments after those are not necessarily Gods will. Some could be.

Going away from the gold standard is a good example. It's constitutional now to have paper money. But we can plainly see the evil that has come from that amendment.

I have a talk from John Taylor. I wish I could find. I believe it's his 1914 or 1915 conference talk. Right after that amendment took place where he reiterated the need to follow constitutional laws only and calls out the membership for allowing the constitution to be changed and perverted. Maybe you can find that talk. I know it's from one of those 2 years.

That explain it better?
So... you believe that every single person, regardless of what country they live in, is sinning by obeying local laws that don't conform to your interpretation of the US Constitution?

In the autumn 1995 general conference a temple was announced in Harrison, New York. The Harrison government refused to issue variances and fought in court to prevent the church from building the proposed temple, and in 2006 the church finally removed that temple from the official list of announced temples.

Do you believe that construction permits and zoning ordinances are constitutional? I don't recall anything within the Constitution explicitly permitting these regulations, but the church obeys those laws.

I get the impression that you don't have the courage to openly violate felony laws that you believe are unconstitutional because you don't want to face a long prison sentence. I will choose to obey the teachings of President Tanner, which would have been approved by President Kimball, and not risk years in prison by openly violating laws you consider unconstitutional.
The 10th amendment allows for states to choose how and what they do in their states anything not specifically said in the constitution. As long as it doesn't infringe the constitutional rights.

So yes the states can have zoning laws and construction permits. I am not a big fan of anyone telling me what I can and can't do on my own property. But we the people can change those laws within the states or county in the state. Idaho county in Idaho has no building codes. I really like that. Wish more places did the same.

If the law of the land was to kill all Jews or turn them in for killing. Would you obey the laws? Many would out of fear. Not many wouldn't. That's what happened in Germany.

There are risks in not following or supporting unconstitutional laws. And there are risks in following them to. As we are judged by our works with government.

If the laws like many of our current laws are in direct violation to the gospel principles then yes. It's sin to follow the laws of the land.

But many will. Some won't.

I feel that it's sin to support abortions. I feel it's sin to rob from peter to pay Paul. So I don't support welfare. I feel it's sin to support illegal wars. I figured out how to legally not support those thing by legally not paying taxes.

What felony laws are unconstitutional in your mind? That comment makes no sense to me.
Unless and until the time comes when armed insurrection is appropriate, we do have a system in place that provides opportunities for change. When I feel a law needs to be changed I will support efforts to change that law through the judicial process, lobbying representatives, maybe running for office personally, supporting voter initiatives, or even creating a voter initiative.

I do believe the National Firearms Act is unconstitutional, and I am strongly supporting the Hearing Protection Act bill as a way of rolling back the NFA.

User avatar
gkearney
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 5346

Re: Doctrine on divorce

Post by gkearney »

He should check with a layer. In most states it is not required for both partners to sign the papers otherwise you would end up with a situation in which one of the partners could blackmail the other by saying that they would not sign. So he may well already be legally divorced.

Ezra
captain of 1,000
Posts: 4357
Location: Not telling

Re: Doctrine on divorce

Post by Ezra »

brianj wrote: March 25th, 2017, 12:55 pm
Ezra wrote: March 23rd, 2017, 11:05 pm
brianj wrote: March 23rd, 2017, 10:27 pm
Ezra wrote: March 23rd, 2017, 9:58 pm You will find it in d&c 98.

4 And now, verily I say unto you concerning the laws of the land, it is my will that my people should observe to do all things whatsoever I command them.

5 And that law of the land which is constitutional, supporting that principle of freedom in maintaining rights and privileges, belongs to all mankind, and is justifiable before me.

6 Therefore, I, the Lord, justify you, and your brethren of my church, in befriending that law which is the constitutional law of the land;

7 And as pertaining to law of man, whatsoever is more or less than this, cometh of evil.

Whatsoever is more then this. This meaning the constitutional laws of the land.

So yes we are to obey the laws of the land. As many have said and pointed out. But that's not the full instructions. more specifically the instructions are obey the laws of the land that are constitutional only. Anything more will cometh evil.

There are many examples and more explanation that is needed to really understand that.

First god endorsed the constitution with its original 10 amendments. Any amendments after those are not necessarily Gods will. Some could be.

Going away from the gold standard is a good example. It's constitutional now to have paper money. But we can plainly see the evil that has come from that amendment.

I have a talk from John Taylor. I wish I could find. I believe it's his 1914 or 1915 conference talk. Right after that amendment took place where he reiterated the need to follow constitutional laws only and calls out the membership for allowing the constitution to be changed and perverted. Maybe you can find that talk. I know it's from one of those 2 years.

That explain it better?
So... you believe that every single person, regardless of what country they live in, is sinning by obeying local laws that don't conform to your interpretation of the US Constitution?

In the autumn 1995 general conference a temple was announced in Harrison, New York. The Harrison government refused to issue variances and fought in court to prevent the church from building the proposed temple, and in 2006 the church finally removed that temple from the official list of announced temples.

Do you believe that construction permits and zoning ordinances are constitutional? I don't recall anything within the Constitution explicitly permitting these regulations, but the church obeys those laws.

I get the impression that you don't have the courage to openly violate felony laws that you believe are unconstitutional because you don't want to face a long prison sentence. I will choose to obey the teachings of President Tanner, which would have been approved by President Kimball, and not risk years in prison by openly violating laws you consider unconstitutional.
The 10th amendment allows for states to choose how and what they do in their states anything not specifically said in the constitution. As long as it doesn't infringe the constitutional rights.

So yes the states can have zoning laws and construction permits. I am not a big fan of anyone telling me what I can and can't do on my own property. But we the people can change those laws within the states or county in the state. Idaho county in Idaho has no building codes. I really like that. Wish more places did the same.

If the law of the land was to kill all Jews or turn them in for killing. Would you obey the laws? Many would out of fear. Not many wouldn't. That's what happened in Germany.

There are risks in not following or supporting unconstitutional laws. And there are risks in following them to. As we are judged by our works with government.

If the laws like many of our current laws are in direct violation to the gospel principles then yes. It's sin to follow the laws of the land.

But many will. Some won't.

I feel that it's sin to support abortions. I feel it's sin to rob from peter to pay Paul. So I don't support welfare. I feel it's sin to support illegal wars. I figured out how to legally not support those thing by legally not paying taxes.

What felony laws are unconstitutional in your mind? That comment makes no sense to me.
Unless and until the time comes when armed insurrection is appropriate, we do have a system in place that provides opportunities for change. When I feel a law needs to be changed I will support efforts to change that law through the judicial process, lobbying representatives, maybe running for office personally, supporting voter initiatives, or even creating a voter initiative.

I do believe the National Firearms Act is unconstitutional, and I am strongly supporting the Hearing Protection Act bill as a way of rolling back the NFA.
Look up gun trusts. Legal ownership of all those banned guns.

brianj
captain of 1,000
Posts: 4066
Location: Vineyard, Utah

Re: Doctrine on divorce

Post by brianj »

Ezra wrote: March 25th, 2017, 3:46 pm
brianj wrote: March 25th, 2017, 12:55 pm
Ezra wrote: March 23rd, 2017, 11:05 pm
brianj wrote: March 23rd, 2017, 10:27 pm

So... you believe that every single person, regardless of what country they live in, is sinning by obeying local laws that don't conform to your interpretation of the US Constitution?

In the autumn 1995 general conference a temple was announced in Harrison, New York. The Harrison government refused to issue variances and fought in court to prevent the church from building the proposed temple, and in 2006 the church finally removed that temple from the official list of announced temples.

Do you believe that construction permits and zoning ordinances are constitutional? I don't recall anything within the Constitution explicitly permitting these regulations, but the church obeys those laws.

I get the impression that you don't have the courage to openly violate felony laws that you believe are unconstitutional because you don't want to face a long prison sentence. I will choose to obey the teachings of President Tanner, which would have been approved by President Kimball, and not risk years in prison by openly violating laws you consider unconstitutional.
The 10th amendment allows for states to choose how and what they do in their states anything not specifically said in the constitution. As long as it doesn't infringe the constitutional rights.

So yes the states can have zoning laws and construction permits. I am not a big fan of anyone telling me what I can and can't do on my own property. But we the people can change those laws within the states or county in the state. Idaho county in Idaho has no building codes. I really like that. Wish more places did the same.

If the law of the land was to kill all Jews or turn them in for killing. Would you obey the laws? Many would out of fear. Not many wouldn't. That's what happened in Germany.

There are risks in not following or supporting unconstitutional laws. And there are risks in following them to. As we are judged by our works with government.

If the laws like many of our current laws are in direct violation to the gospel principles then yes. It's sin to follow the laws of the land.

But many will. Some won't.

I feel that it's sin to support abortions. I feel it's sin to rob from peter to pay Paul. So I don't support welfare. I feel it's sin to support illegal wars. I figured out how to legally not support those thing by legally not paying taxes.

What felony laws are unconstitutional in your mind? That comment makes no sense to me.
Unless and until the time comes when armed insurrection is appropriate, we do have a system in place that provides opportunities for change. When I feel a law needs to be changed I will support efforts to change that law through the judicial process, lobbying representatives, maybe running for office personally, supporting voter initiatives, or even creating a voter initiative.

I do believe the National Firearms Act is unconstitutional, and I am strongly supporting the Hearing Protection Act bill as a way of rolling back the NFA.
Look up gun trusts. Legal ownership of all those banned guns.
I'm familiar with trusts, as well as filling out a Form 1 or 4 as an individual. Right now an electronic Form 4 for an individual is taking around 190 days on average, and for a trust is taking around 240 days. Add 20 to 30 days for electronic filings. That's after paying $200 for the tax stamp to buy a rimfire suppressor that can be had for under $150. If I had the tools to make my own K baffles then I could get a Form 1 returned in as little as 270 days.

Making people pay $200 then wait nine months is not how freedom is respected.

Ezra
captain of 1,000
Posts: 4357
Location: Not telling

Re: Doctrine on divorce

Post by Ezra »

brianj wrote: March 25th, 2017, 9:29 pm
Ezra wrote: March 25th, 2017, 3:46 pm
brianj wrote: March 25th, 2017, 12:55 pm
Ezra wrote: March 23rd, 2017, 11:05 pm

The 10th amendment allows for states to choose how and what they do in their states anything not specifically said in the constitution. As long as it doesn't infringe the constitutional rights.

So yes the states can have zoning laws and construction permits. I am not a big fan of anyone telling me what I can and can't do on my own property. But we the people can change those laws within the states or county in the state. Idaho county in Idaho has no building codes. I really like that. Wish more places did the same.

If the law of the land was to kill all Jews or turn them in for killing. Would you obey the laws? Many would out of fear. Not many wouldn't. That's what happened in Germany.

There are risks in not following or supporting unconstitutional laws. And there are risks in following them to. As we are judged by our works with government.

If the laws like many of our current laws are in direct violation to the gospel principles then yes. It's sin to follow the laws of the land.

But many will. Some won't.

I feel that it's sin to support abortions. I feel it's sin to rob from peter to pay Paul. So I don't support welfare. I feel it's sin to support illegal wars. I figured out how to legally not support those thing by legally not paying taxes.

What felony laws are unconstitutional in your mind? That comment makes no sense to me.
Unless and until the time comes when armed insurrection is appropriate, we do have a system in place that provides opportunities for change. When I feel a law needs to be changed I will support efforts to change that law through the judicial process, lobbying representatives, maybe running for office personally, supporting voter initiatives, or even creating a voter initiative.

I do believe the National Firearms Act is unconstitutional, and I am strongly supporting the Hearing Protection Act bill as a way of rolling back the NFA.
Look up gun trusts. Legal ownership of all those banned guns.
I'm familiar with trusts, as well as filling out a Form 1 or 4 as an individual. Right now an electronic Form 4 for an individual is taking around 190 days on average, and for a trust is taking around 240 days. Add 20 to 30 days for electronic filings. That's after paying $200 for the tax stamp to buy a rimfire suppressor that can be had for under $150. If I had the tools to make my own K baffles then I could get a Form 1 returned in as little as 270 days.

Making people pay $200 then wait nine months is not how freedom is respected.
Look up solvent traps.

brianj
captain of 1,000
Posts: 4066
Location: Vineyard, Utah

Re: Doctrine on divorce

Post by brianj »

Ezra wrote: March 25th, 2017, 9:49 pm
brianj wrote: March 25th, 2017, 9:29 pm
Ezra wrote: March 25th, 2017, 3:46 pm
brianj wrote: March 25th, 2017, 12:55 pm I do believe the National Firearms Act is unconstitutional, and I am strongly supporting the Hearing Protection Act bill as a way of rolling back the NFA.
Look up gun trusts. Legal ownership of all those banned guns.
I'm familiar with trusts, as well as filling out a Form 1 or 4 as an individual. Right now an electronic Form 4 for an individual is taking around 190 days on average, and for a trust is taking around 240 days. Add 20 to 30 days for electronic filings. That's after paying $200 for the tax stamp to buy a rimfire suppressor that can be had for under $150. If I had the tools to make my own K baffles then I could get a Form 1 returned in as little as 270 days.

Making people pay $200 then wait nine months is not how freedom is respected.
Look up solvent traps.
Solvent traps require spending $200 on a tax stamp and waiting 9+ months for your stamp and Form 1 to be returned. They also require a hydraulic press to deform the "cups" and a drill press to put holes in those "cups" and the end cap. Even if I had the tools required I wouldn't enjoy the $200 tax or the long wait before I could do anything. And if I didn't wait I would be committing one of those felonies that I believe are unconstitutional but not worth spending a decade in prison over.

Ezra
captain of 1,000
Posts: 4357
Location: Not telling

Re: Doctrine on divorce

Post by Ezra »

brianj wrote: March 25th, 2017, 10:03 pm
Ezra wrote: March 25th, 2017, 9:49 pm
brianj wrote: March 25th, 2017, 9:29 pm
Ezra wrote: March 25th, 2017, 3:46 pm

Look up gun trusts. Legal ownership of all those banned guns.
I'm familiar with trusts, as well as filling out a Form 1 or 4 as an individual. Right now an electronic Form 4 for an individual is taking around 190 days on average, and for a trust is taking around 240 days. Add 20 to 30 days for electronic filings. That's after paying $200 for the tax stamp to buy a rimfire suppressor that can be had for under $150. If I had the tools to make my own K baffles then I could get a Form 1 returned in as little as 270 days.

Making people pay $200 then wait nine months is not how freedom is respected.
Look up solvent traps.
Solvent traps require spending $200 on a tax stamp and waiting 9+ months for your stamp and Form 1 to be returned. They also require a hydraulic press to deform the "cups" and a drill press to put holes in those "cups" and the end cap. Even if I had the tools required I wouldn't enjoy the $200 tax or the long wait before I could do anything. And if I didn't wait I would be committing one of those felonies that I believe are unconstitutional but not worth spending a decade in prison over.
So those are the type of felonys your talking about. I have no problem having solvent traps. They have some that only requires drilling the holes to what ever size you want. They don't use the cups. They are a bit more advanced.

Prepperdiscount.com look through there different solvent traps.

You don't need to pay a tax for a solvent trap. Or file for anything. They are solvent traps. For cleaning. What eles would you use them for??? B-)

Post Reply