This is an example of mental gymnastics I think we're sometimes asked to perform as members, only in this case it's not actually the church making the leap (although it could be argued it was if the pamphlet was an official publication and there is little doubt that some members might believe this anyway). Other translations of the Bible change the wording of Matt 5:32 and instead of fornication use sexual immorality, unfaithfulness, or unchastity. The argument there could be made that other translators were trying to make sense of the use of fornication in relation to married people, especially when adultery is also mentioned later in the same sentence. Rather than make the leap the Laffertys/author did that fornication must include something non-sexual, I choose to interpret as the majority of other translators do, that it had to do with some sort of sexual immorality.Roy wrote: ↑19 May 2022, 08:51This definition come directly from that pamphlet "Peace Maker." The author (of Peace Maker) uses Matt. 5:32 as his source text. In it Jesus is saying not to divorce your wives, save for the "cause of fornication." The author speculates that a wife cannot commit fornication in the physical sense because that would be "adultery" instead. Therefore fornication must mean something else. Fornication, according to his definition, is when a woman withholds her proper loyalty, obedience, or affection from her husband.
Bible Hub link to Matt 5:32: https://biblehub.com/matthew/5-32.htm
The writers seem to be trying to make a point that the Laffertys/school of the prophets were very literal in their interpretation of Bible passages where women were to be subjugated to their husbands. That very well may be true because other fundamentalist groups (and similar religious fanatics outside the church) hold similar beliefs. I think intelligent viewers can see this for what it is and that it does not cast a shadow on the mainstream church.