Divorce and Remarriage - What happens to Guilty?

[prisonchaplain]

Here's the scenario: Individual comes in to my office seeking counsel. She's been divorced, and wants to know if remarriage is permitted. So, I ask: Was this a biblical acceptable divorce--was there unfaithfulness or abandonment involved (adultery or spouse walking out). Oh yes, there was. Uh...but...well, I was the unfaithful one.

Being the moderate, open-minded person I am, I asked, "Well, did this happen before your conversion?" No no...fairly recently.

Most churches I know of would counsel such a one that yes, God forgives and has done so. But, the consequence is that she must remain celibate, perhaps giving herself over to more extensive gospel work. For her to remarry would be to bring her new husband under the guilt of adultery.

A few may argue that after SINCERE repentence, and perhaps a time of prayerful spiritual rehabilitation, "What's under the blood is forgotten," and remarriage would be possible.

Thoughts?

[bytor2112]

How recently? In the LDS church, she would probably be subject to some kind of church discipline......disfellowship or even excommunication. That being said, remarrying would be preferable to continuing to live a sinful life.

[prisonchaplain]

For the sake of discussion, we'll assume it was between 18 months and two years ago. Beyond this specific case, though, I'm curious about the general approach. My understanding of Paul's writings is that with true repentence, full restoration to church life could happen quite quickly, but remarriage may not be an option.

Now, if one of our ministers has a moral failing, the restoration process takes between 1-2 years (during which no public ministry is allowed), and requires vetting. In other words, even with the time passage, restoration is not guaranteed. Furthermore, the person would definitely not be allowed to remarry so long as the former spouse is living.

The exception to all of this is that the offended spouse can choose to be reconciled. That would be allowed, but would also likely involve very serious counseling.

[bytor2112]

Marriage is a bit different in the LDS church. Some members are not sealed to their spouses....for whatever reasons. Some members have entered into the New and Everlasting Covenant of Marriage and these marriages are for time and all eternity,not just until death do us part. So, perhaps, a sister might have to wait longer to be sealed to the new husband, but I can't imagine that she would be counseled against marriage, especially if she was full repentant Edited February 27, 2009 by bytor2112

[Just_A_Guy]

Personally, I don't see a major problem with her remarrying in general once she feels ready to make--and keep--that kind of commitment. But it'd raise some eyebrows if she were planning to marry the guy she'd been having an affair with--not for reasons of "sin" as much as that I just don't think you can build a good marriage on such a cracked foundation.

[bytor2112]

Being the moderate, open-minded person I am, I asked, "Well, did this happen before your conversion?" No no...fairly recently.

This statement suggests that without conversion.....she didn't know what she did was wrong? You are of course suggesting that as a disciple of Christ she must live to a higher standard?

[bytor2112]

Now, if one of our ministers has a moral failing, the restoration process takes between 1-2 years (during which no public ministry is allowed), and requires vetting. In other words, even with the time passage, restoration is not guaranteed. Furthermore, the person would definitely not be allowed to remarry so long as the former spouse is living.

That doesn't sound like forgiveness.........How would this sinful act affect her eternal salvation......according to your belief? If she has been "saved"......does that negate her salvation? Can all sins be forgiven? If yes, and I am sure you agree that only God forgives sin, how do you explain to someone that yes, the Lord will forgive your sins, but not the church. The stigma of your transgression must forever stain you in the eyes of the church???

Edited February 27, 2009 by bytor2112

[prisonchaplain]

This statement suggests that without conversion.....she didn't know what she did was wrong? You are of course suggesting that as a disciple of Christ she must live to a higher standard?

Yes, Christians are called to a higher standard. Many irreligious people, particular in North America and Western Europe, believe that marriage is a happiness contract. "Til my needs are no longer met."

If such a person marries, divorces, marries, divorces...then comes to faith in Christ...those past decisions are definitely considered "under the blood." We simply move on, after making assuring that we've done "all that we can" to make amends with those we may have hurt.

However, if a Christian divorces for non-Scriptural reasons, s/he does so as an act of spiritual rebellion. Further, if a Christian ends up divorcing due to their own wrong deeds...again, it's full, knowing sin. Can such be forgiven. Of course. Might their be cause and effect? Again, of course.

[prisonchaplain]

That doesn't sound like forgiveness.........How would this sinful act affect her eternal salvation......according to your belief? If she has been "saved"......does that negate her salvation? Can all sins be forgiven? If yes, and I am sure you agree that only God forgives sin, how do you explain to someone that yes, the Lord will forgive your sins, but not the church. The stigma of your transgression must forever stain you in the eyes of the church???

First, she is not a clergyperson. Our clergy, in my church, are held to a very strict standard. Paul says the overseers (bishops) are to be the husbands of one wife. We take that literally to mean that they cannot remarry, so long as their spouse is living. Our standard is controversial, and many other churches have different understandings. But, also understand that, unlike the Catholic Church, for example, we see the call to ministry that is credentialed, to simply be a call to a position. If, for example, a young pastor, who's wife leaves him, chooses to remarry, and reliquishes his ministerial credentials, there would be no thought that he had sinned. I knew a youth pastor who did this, became a teacher instead, and probably does as much "ministry" now as he did before.

Second, this discussion is about divorce and remarriage, not salvation. God can forgive any sin, no matter how dire. But, within the church, there are standards for marriage. If a member breaks that standard, there will be long-term consequences. But, such is not considered a "Scarlet A," or a permanent judgment. Rather, we see the Bible teaching that a person who has been the victim of unfaithfulness in marriage, can both divorce and remarry. The guilty person can certainly be forgiven by God, but cannot remarry, unless the offended partner wishes to reconcile.

[bytor2112]

Yes, Christians are called to a higher standard. Many irreligious people, particular in North America and Western Europe, believe that marriage is a happiness contract. "Til my needs are no longer met."

If such a person marries, divorces, marries, divorces...then comes to faith in Christ...those past decisions are definitely considered "under the blood." We simply move on, after making assuring that we've done "all that we can" to make amends with those we may have hurt.

However, if a Christian divorces for non-Scriptural reasons, s/he does so as an act of spiritual rebellion. Further, if a Christian ends up divorcing due to their own wrong deeds...again, it's full, knowing sin. Can such be forgiven. Of course. Might their be cause and effect? Again, of course.

I should probably clarify.....I too believe that Christians are called to a higher standard, my statement made it sound like I didn't.

[bytor2112]

Second, this discussion is about divorce and remarriage, not salvation. God can forgive any sin, no matter how dire. But, within the church, there are standards for marriage. If a member breaks that standard, there will be long-term consequences. But, such is not considered a "Scarlet A," or a permanent judgment. Rather, we see the Bible teaching that a person who has been the victim of unfaithfulness in marriage, can both divorce and remarry. The guilty person can certainly be forgiven by God, but cannot remarry, unless the offended partner wishes to reconcile.

It sounds like sin and forgiveness also. When you say long term consequences, how long? I know a fellow in our Stake, that was excommunicated for adultry, etc. He is now a Branch President (kind of like a Bishop) and remarried. If he were denied to opportunity to remarry, how would he ever feel forgiven?

[Traveler]

Here's the scenario: Individual comes in to my office seeking counsel. She's been divorced, and wants to know if remarriage is permitted. So, I ask: Was this a biblical acceptable divorce--was there unfaithfulness or abandonment involved (adultery or spouse walking out). Oh yes, there was. Uh...but...well, I was the unfaithful one.

Being the moderate, open-minded person I am, I asked, "Well, did this happen before your conversion?" No no...fairly recently.

Most churches I know of would counsel such a one that yes, God forgives and has done so. But, the consequence is that she must remain celibate, perhaps giving herself over to more extensive gospel work. For her to remarry would be to bring her new husband under the guilt of adultery.

A few may argue that after SINCERE repentence, and perhaps a time of prayerful spiritual rehabilitation, "What's under the blood is forgotten," and remarriage would be possible.

Thoughts?

There is a difference based on the covenant one has in their marriage. If their broken marriage was made "before G-d" or according to LDS terminology a “temple” or “Celestial” marriage they need to obtain a “temple recommend” specific to having their marriage “sealed” in the temple. If they had what we call a civil marriage then a civil divorce is all that is needed to end that covenant – because G-d is not part of such a covenant.

Any LDS temple marriage requires a recommend for that covenant to be sealed in the temple.

One thing to keep in mind that when one presents themselves before the L-rd for a covenant through his appointed servants, past guilt or blame is not really a part of the picture. A person is “recommended” for covenant based on their repentance and faith in Christ. If there are things in a person’s past that are in question the bishop or other authority in the priesthood is there as an “advocate” to assist that person in reconciling with G-d. (Note in the LDS way of thinking a priesthood holder represents G-d as an agent or proxy in covenant – what is bound on earth is bound in heaven). With this in mind a priesthood authority may ask a person to do some thing - not as punishment but as preparation for sacred covenant.

Therefore, the person is not “damned” excluded or punished from a covenant with G-d but assisted in their repentance process (in the same manner that Christ is an advocate) by those called to G-d service.

The Traveler

[Vort]

Here's the scenario: Individual comes in to my office seeking counsel. She's been divorced, and wants to know if remarriage is permitted. So, I ask: Was this a biblical acceptable divorce--was there unfaithfulness or abandonment involved (adultery or spouse walking out). Oh yes, there was. Uh...but...well, I was the unfaithful one.

Being the moderate, open-minded person I am, I asked, "Well, did this happen before your conversion?" No no...fairly recently.

Most churches I know of would counsel such a one that yes, God forgives and has done so. But, the consequence is that she must remain celibate, perhaps giving herself over to more extensive gospel work. For her to remarry would be to bring her new husband under the guilt of adultery.

A few may argue that after SINCERE repentence, and perhaps a time of prayerful spiritual rehabilitation, "What's under the blood is forgotten," and remarriage would be possible.

Thoughts?

From an LDS viewpoint -- which really means from Vort's viewpoint, since I don't speak for the LDS Church -- we are not currently bound by the full terms of the laws of marriage. In Zion, a marriage would be considered so sacred that no one would ever consider divorce, except perhaps in cases of adultery or severe abuse. (But then, that wouldn't happen in Zion, would it?) As the mortal Lord explained, Moses allowed divorce because the people's hearts were too hard to live the higher law. It appears to me that we, too, are not yet bound under the absolute terms of the higher law.

I say this because I observe that men and women may divorce for whatever selfish or frivolous reason, remarry, and still obtain a recommend to enter God's holy temple and hold whatever callings come their way. If we were bound under the law that Christ explained (and that Paul emphasized), surely this would not be the case.

Thoughts:

- I don't know of any Church Priesthood leaders I have ever had (quorum presidents, bishops, stake presidents) that have divorced for a frivolous reason and then remarried. There have been cases where their wife left them for a frivolous reason, but that is their wife's doing, not theirs. Since their wife left the union, they are no longer bound under the covenant, and thus fulfill the Pauline instruction to be the "husband of one wife".

- Note that the word "adultery" is used to mean "covenant breaking", and applies both to sexual infidelity and, in a larger sense, to the breaking of covenants in general (e.g. the people of Israel at some points were a wicked and adulterous generation because they broke their covenants to God). If one party sues for divorce, he or she is unilaterally breaking that covenant, and thus, in a sense, committing adultery. Under Christ's law, this is grounds for true divorce on the part of the other party.

- Christ didn't talk about women divorcing their husbands, because (I gather) such a practice was so rare as to be almost unheard of in his time. I understand that husbands divorced their wives because they wanted another woman and didn't want to support their current wife. This, if true, shows marriage as a societal contract arrangement more than a union of souls, which is the historical (and perhaps present) reality.

- As I see Traveler points out above but that didn't occur to me to write, I believe Christ was talking about what we LDS would call "celestial marriage" or "temple marriage". A civil marriage has no eternal standing before God (though I do believe that God recognizes and honors such a marriage in the sense that the married partners are not living in fornication), and thus is not included under the same laws that govern an eternal marriage.

Edited February 27, 2009 by Vort
Traveler brings up a good point I forgot to address

[Vort]

- As I see Traveler points out above but that didn't occur to me to write, I believe Christ was talking about what we LDS would call "celestial marriage" or "temple marriage". A civil marriage has no eternal standing before God (though I do believe that God recognizes and honors such a marriage in the sense that the married partners are not living in fornication), and thus is not included under the same laws that govern an eternal marriage.

You know, this really isn't a satisfactory answer. There are all sorts of potential legal unions that I believe God would not recognize even temporally; two obvious examples are polygamy and so-called "gay marriage". It appears to me that God recognizes the temporal marital union of a man and a woman not only because it is proclaimed and recognized by the society as a whole, but because it conforms to the divine plan of marriage. That suggests there is something inherently divine and holy about the marriage of a man and a woman, even outside the temple covenants. (Which of course I believe anyway, as I suspect most Latter-day Saints do, so maybe this shouldn't come as such a revelation to me.)

[hordak]

There is a difference based on the covenant one has in their marriage. If their broken marriage was made "before G-d" or according to LDS terminology a “temple” or “Celestial” marriage they need to obtain a “temple recommend” specific to having their marriage “sealed” in the temple. If they had what we call a civil marriage then a civil divorce is all that is needed to end that covenant – because G-d is not part of such a covenant.

I disagree

If non members don't convent with God to follow the WoW they are not held accountable for breaking it.

Does that mean civilly wed couple who don't covenant with God will not be accountable either?

No covenant no law

No law no sin

[prisonchaplain]

It sounds like sin and forgiveness also. When you say long term consequences, how long? I know a fellow in our Stake, that was excommunicated for adultry, etc. He is now a Branch President (kind of like a Bishop) and remarried. If he were denied to opportunity to remarry, how would he ever feel forgiven?

Do child support payments feel forgiving? Hep-C (from drug use, sometimes)? Lengthy prison sentences?

Perhaps part of the reason that a ban on remarriage for adulterers feels so unforgiving in LDS circles is because of the belief in eternal marriage? I wonder if our reading of Paul's writings would be different, if we held to that doctrine. For us, though, the Bible incunction that he who divorces for unbiblical grounds, and then remarries causes his new spouse to commit adultery as well, as the spiritual consequence of sin--one that for most, means a couple to a few decades of celibacy (not an eternity).

[Maxel]

I understand there's more to the situation than can be solved by the quotation of one scripture, but the woman taken in adultery in John 8 seems to relate to this situation.

3 And the scribes and Pharisees brought unto him a woman taken in adultery; and when they had set her in the midst,

4 They say unto him, Master, this woman was taken in adultery, in the very act...

10 When Jesus had lifted up himself, and saw none but the woman, he said unto her, Woman, where are those thine accusers? hath no man condemned thee?

11 She said, No man, Lord. And Jesus said unto her, Neither do I condemn thee: go, and sin no more.

There's much more to the situation than is stated, and I am referencing the infamous pericope adulterae, but I can't help but feel it is very relevant to this situation. I agree with other LDS posters that the woman should have a chance to remarry after a sufficient repentance process- but that repentance process will be difficult, if undertaken at all.

[prisonchaplain]

Traveler, the short answer to your query is that in Protestant churches all marriages in which participants invoke a pledge before God are consider sacred. But further, even a civil marriage (i.e. the marriage took place before conversion, but continued after conversion) is expected to be honored. So, fairly recently, my church relaxed its standards ever-so-slightly, by saying that if a person divorces before their conversion, and then remarries--s/he can still enter ordained ministry.

[AELK]

My assumption is that the man she wishes to marry is the one she committed adultery with. So perhaps this is an action to make right what was done? I know of the exact same situation that occurred with a man that I was dating. His marriage ended when his wife committed adultery with his best friend. All she wanted was a divorce so she could marry this other man. She begged for a divorce and was willing to give up her children if her husband would agree to a divorce, which he did on the grounds he got total custody. In that circumstance, both individuals, the wife and the man she was with, were excommunicated from the LDS church. My frank opinion is that I cannot be judgmental for I would be judged by the same I judgment I place on others. Is it okay? As far as what the individual in your scenario is doing. Who can say? Maybe it is an attempt to make right a wrong. Has she repented? Repented both with God and the prior husband she hurt? If truly so, she deserves to move on. Who are we to question what God has forgiven?

[Traveler]

I disagree

If non members don't convent with God to follow the WoW they are not held accountable for breaking it.

Does that mean civilly wed couple who don't covenant with God will not be accountable either?

No covenant no law

No law no sin

All things are governed by law and all will make an accounting for the covenant and associated law. As I understand only a temple marriage includes eternal (eternal meaning G-d's) law. What you are missing is that the blessings of the WoW cannot be given to those that do not covenant. As I understand covenants - they are for the purpose of blessing. Rather than the opposit being a reason for punishment for those that do not have or live a particular covenant.

The reason for the WoW is not to punish those that do not seek or live the covenant but to reward those the "knock", "seek" and "ask" thereby recieving and living the covenant and thus are blessed.

The Good News about making a covenant with G-d is that all are welcome to repent and come unto G-d and to become partakers in his rich blessings. I want to make it clear that all are welcome to come unto G-d; and regardless of their past and their failures to accept the atonement of Christ - be forgiven of whatever it is in their past - and become a saint, born again of the spirit - a child of G-d and an heir of all that G-d has.

Regardless of what you have done there is a way - the only way - to become blameless and pure. And G-d has sent his servants into the world with power to teach and assist everyone that desires to come unto G-d. No exceptions - The way open and available to all that are willing to covenant or in some cases to covenant again with G-d.

The Traveler

[Traveler]

Traveler, the short answer to your query is that in Protestant churches all marriages in which participants invoke a pledge before God are consider sacred. But further, even a civil marriage (i.e. the marriage took place before conversion, but continued after conversion) is expected to be honored. So, fairly recently, my church relaxed its standards ever-so-slightly, by saying that if a person divorces before their conversion, and then remarries--s/he can still enter ordained ministry.

There is a slight difference in the LDS understanding. Our understanding is that there are several elements that govern covenants with G-d. Intent is only one element. I respect your understanding but our understanding is different. Like the unauthorized person trying to steady the Ark - intent is important but only those that G-d authorizes are acceptable by him to be his agent and proxy. We believe if something is not done without this authority the covenant is not valid.

The main point I would like to get past is not what makes a covenant invalid but what makes a covenant valid. How does a person that has failed a covenant reestablish themselves before G-d? How does a prodigal return?

I want to make sure that all understand that LDS doctrine welcomes the return of the prodigal that indeed have returned.

The Traveler

[prisonchaplain]

My assumption is that the man she wishes to marry is the one she committed adultery with. So perhaps this is an action to make right what was done? I know of the exact same situation that occurred with a man that I was dating. His marriage ended when his wife committed adultery with his best friend. All she wanted was a divorce so she could marry this other man. She begged for a divorce and was willing to give up her children if her husband would agree to a divorce, which he did on the grounds he got total custody. In that circumstance, both individuals, the wife and the man she was with, were excommunicated from the LDS church. My frank opinion is that I cannot be judgmental for I would be judged by the same I judgment I place on others. Is it okay? As far as what the individual in your scenario is doing. Who can say? Maybe it is an attempt to make right a wrong. Has she repented? Repented both with God and the prior husband she hurt? If truly so, she deserves to move on. Who are we to question what God has forgiven?

If the Bible says that remarriage after being unfaithful is adultery, then it is not me, nor the church, judging a person. Rather, it's an "if-then" standard of living. If you commit adultery, then you must remain celibate. God is merciful. When David committed adultery, it costs him his kingdom and his son. But, he praised God, because he was nevertheless forgiven.

We confuse consequence with some kind of unfair public condemnation, imho.

[prisonchaplain]

There is a slight difference in the LDS understanding. Our understanding is that there are several elements that govern covenants with G-d. Intent is only one element. I respect your understanding but our understanding is different. Like the unauthorized person trying to steady the Ark - intent is important but only those that G-d authorizes are acceptable by him to be his agent and proxy. We believe if something is not done without this authority the covenant is not valid.

The main point I would like to get past is not what makes a covenant invalid but what makes a covenant valid. How does a person that has failed a covenant reestablish themselves before G-d? How does a prodigal return?

I want to make sure that all understand that LDS doctrine welcomes the return of the prodigal that indeed have returned.

The Traveler

If Ceeboo is around it would be good to hear his take. I understand that in Catholic practice, only weddings performed under Catholic authority are considered. So, if a person was divorced thrice, but the marriages were civil, or were done under Protestant (or LDS) authority, then s/he can enter into a Catholic marriage, and it's not even considered a second union.

[hordak]

All things are governed by law and all will make an accounting for the covenant and associated law. As I understand only a temple marriage includes eternal (eternal meaning G-d's) law. What you are missing is that the blessings of the WoW cannot be given to those that do not covenant. As I understand covenants - they are for the purpose of blessing. Rather than the opposit being a reason for punishment for those that do not have or live a particular covenant.

The reason for the WoW is not to punish those that do not seek or live the covenant but to reward those the "knock", "seek" and "ask" thereby recieving and living the covenant and thus are blessed.

The Good News about making a covenant with G-d is that all are welcome to repent and come unto G-d and to become partakers in his rich blessings. I want to make it clear that all are welcome to come unto G-d; and regardless of their past and their failures to accept the atonement of Christ - be forgiven of whatever it is in their past - and become a saint, born again of the spirit - a child of G-d and an heir of all that G-d has.

Regardless of what you have done there is a way - the only way - to become blameless and pure. And G-d has sent his servants into the world with power to teach and assist everyone that desires to come unto G-d. No exceptions - The way open and available to all that are willing to covenant or in some cases to covenant again with G-d.

The Traveler

I'm not following you, (tired for writing last minute papers) but it think the WoW reference became a red herring so I'll see if i can explain myself better.

Gods laws are convents we make with him. The WoW being an example is only necessary to be followed who convent with God to follow it.I. E. Prison Chaplin wouldn't be punished for having the occasional glass of wine with dinner as he never agreed not to.

If God is no part of a civil marriage then Gods standards would not apply. One could cheat on there spouse without any negative repercussions.

However because the church respects civil marriage, Non temple wed adulterers are held to the same accountability as there counter parts. Civil married couples have the same rights as the temple wed in the church. This seems to indicate to me that the church thinks civilly married couples are under Gods law when the are wed.

To say temple marriage is held to a higher standard is one thing but to say God "is no part of civil marriage" is absurd.IMO

[foreverafter]

If the Bible says that remarriage after being unfaithful is adultery, then it is not me, nor the church, judging a person. Rather, it's an "if-then" standard of living. If you commit adultery, then you must remain celibate. God is merciful. When David committed adultery, it costs him his kingdom and his son. But, he praised God, because he was nevertheless forgiven.

Chaplain,

Thank you for this discussion. It is so wonderful to see someone discussing the realities of divorce. As I understand it from all that I have studied in scripture & from ancient & modern Prophets, is that if someone divorces their faithful spouse, they commit adultery & cause anyone they date or remarry to also commit adultery. (So singles must be very careful they don't date unjustified divorced people) Though very few believe & live by this these days, it is nevertheless still true & in full force with all it's severe consequences, especially eternally.

Yes, a person who divorces unjustifiably can repent but that repentance would require serious & lifelong restitution & returning to the spouse they abandoned & sinned against & making it up to their spouse for the rest of their life, If & when the spouse wants them back. It may take along time to convince their spouse that they have truely repented. A truely humble person who is really sorry for the pain they caused their spouse would spend a lifetime trying to prove they really have repented & can be trusted. They may have to work on convincing their former spouse to leave a new 2nd marriage & come back to the 1st marriage, though the innocent spouse would have the choice to do so or not. But they may have lost their spouse & children forever because of their adultery, abuse or abandonment if the innocent spouse never wants to reconcile in this life.

The scriptures say that a divorced person should not seek to remarry, (& if they were righteous & had true love for their spouse they would never want to) because God's goal is for them to reconcile one day, when the former spouse gains enough faith in the guilty one, that their repentance is real & also because if there are children born to the marriage, it hurts the children much more to have a parent date or remarry, along with losing the hope that their parents could repent & their family be eternal. The children's welfare & needs must come first before the parents needs & happiness.

Edited February 28, 2009 by foreverafter