Divorce and Remarriage - What happens to Guilty?

[foreverafter]

Marriage between a Man & a Woman is ordained by God in every case, no matter what religion or no religion at all, the Prophets have said, because marriage is instituted by God not Governments, though they may require their civil permission. God expects full fidelity, true love & lifelong commitment in every marriage. All marriages can eventually be eternal, if at least one has true love & stays faithful to their spouse & vows, no matter if the other spouse does or not. God honors all spouse's love & sacrifices in marriage & guarantees that they won't be in vain & that they will have their spouse to be theirs for all eternity if they accept the offer when it comes, in this life or the next, for the ordinance to be sealed to their spouse forever.

Edited February 28, 2009 by foreverafter

[bytor2112]

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.

Foreverafter,

I am sure your post is well intentioned, but it really isn't what the church teaches. Maybe you could site your sources, because I have never heard or read anything from the church like this before. Just as through the Priesthood marriage can be bound for eternity, it can be loosed as well. Certainly the ideal, the higher law is as you describe, but we are not required to live it in this life.

[blusun7]

isnt divorced described in Matthew some where?Whats the churchs view on this? I ve always that of marriage as between two people because no matter what you will think of them good way or bad but by doing so your not fully into your new spouse which would be a sin. You know what im saying?To me once you are married you have made a covenant to them. IT is somewhere in matthew.I ll see if i can find it.

[bytor2112]

Divorce (Matt. 5:31–32; 3 Ne. 12:31–32)

Jesus said, “Whosoever shall put away his wife, saving for the cause of fornication, causeth her to commit adultery; and whoso shall marry her who is divorced committeth adultery” (3 Ne. 12:32).

This verse raises questions of fairness. Why should the wife who is “put away” or the man who later marries her be judged guilty of adultery—when it may be that she is an innocent victim of her husband’s unrighteousness? And how is this instruction to be interpreted today? Why are members of the Church permitted to divorce, even for reasons other than sexual sin, and allowed to remarry, even in the temple, without the charge of adultery?

These are not easy questions to answer. We do not have record of the Savior elaborating on or qualifying these instructions to the Nephites. There is, however, information in the biblical record and in commentary by modern prophets that may help us understand.

On the subject of fairness, Mark’s account is helpful. He records that after the public exchange with the Pharisees about divorce, Jesus and His disciples went “in the house,” where the disciples “asked him again of the same matter.” There the Savior said:

“Whosoever shall put away his wife, and marry another, committeth adultery against her.

“And if a woman shall put away her husband, and be married to another, she committeth adultery” (Mark 10:10–12).

Notice that in this instance the charge of adultery is against the husband or wife who puts away the other and not against the one who is put away. We are left to wonder what other clarifications the Savior may have made “in the house” to His disciples who honestly desired to know the truth.

The Savior’s response to the Pharisees is also instructive. They challenged Jesus’ teaching about divorce because it differed from what was allowed in the law of Moses. “He saith unto them, Moses because of the hardness of your hearts suffered you to put away your wives: but from the beginning it was not so” (Matt. 19:8). It was no compliment to the Israelites of Moses’ day that they were allowed a lesser standard than that which God intended “from the beginning.” The lesser standard was allowed “because of the hardness of [their] hearts.”

Does this mean that God adjusts standards according to His children’s willingness to obey? Elder Ezra Taft Benson spoke about this principle:

“God has to work through mortals of varying degrees of spiritual progress. Sometimes he temporarily grants to men their unwise requests in order that they might learn from their own sad experiences. Some refer to this as the ‘Samuel principle.’ The children of Israel wanted a king, like all the nations. … The Lord told Samuel to warn the people of the consequences if they had a king. Samuel gave them the warning, but they still insisted on their king. So God gave them a king and let them suffer. … God wanted it to be otherwise, but within certain bounds he grants unto men according to their desires. Bad experiences are an expensive school that only fools keep going to (see 1 Sam. 8).

“Sometimes in our attempts to mimic the world, contrary to the prophet’s counsel, we run after the world’s false educational, political, musical, and dress ideas. New worldly standards take over, a gradual breakdown occurs, and finally, after much suffering, a humble people are ready to be taught once again a higher law.

“Now, during all this gradual lowering of standards, the righteous should be living up to the highest personal standards they can—not forcing those standards on others but preparing for and awaiting a better day which surely must come.” 3

Elder Bruce R. McConkie applied this principle to the subject of divorce: “Divorce is not part of the gospel plan. … But because men in practice do not always live in harmony with gospel standards, the Lord permits divorce for one reason or another, depending upon the spiritual stability of the people involved. … Under the most perfect conditions there would be no divorce permitted except where sex sin was involved. In this day divorces are permitted in accordance with civil statutes, and the divorced persons are permitted by the Church to marry again without the stain of immorality which under a higher system would attend such a course.” 4

When we are not prepared to live a higher law, the Lord, on occasion, may give us a lesser standard, a “schoolmaster” law (see Gal. 3:24). But even strict obedience to the schoolmaster law is not the goal, nor is the law sufficient to exalt us (see Mosiah 3:13–17; Mosiah 12:31–33; Mosiah 13:28–35). The lesser law is a temporary measure, a minimum standard, to help prepare us to live the fulness of the law of Christ. All who would be exalted must, through repentance and obedience, become the kind of people who desire and obey “the law of a celestial kingdom” (D&C 88:22).

Many more honest questions could be asked about divorce as it relates to particular circumstances. Although the scriptures do not address all such questions, we are not left without guidance. Joseph Smith taught that “revelation adapted to the circumstances in which the children of the kingdom are placed” is the “principle on which the government of heaven is conducted.” 5 That revelation comes through the Lord’s authorized servants, who are guided to establish policies and procedures appropriate to the current needs of Church members. As we follow the prophets, the Lord will “lead [us] along” toward “the riches of eternity” (D&C 78:18). -Ensign Article

[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

I think for the most part we agree - you are just coming to your conclusions from a different angle. Of course G-d has part in all things that happen since the beginning of time - he knows all things and takes all things into account in his great plan.

Where you appear to have problem with the point that I am trying to make is you seem to have left out the benefit that man has when making and keeping a covenant with G-d through his lawful and appointed servants according to the ordnances he has prescribed. These covenants are different from all other covenant and contracts that man is capable of entering into while living in mortality. The difference is that covenants with G-d are everlasting and go beyond our mortality.

You are correct that there are moral covenants in morality that G-d honors and respects. If you enter into a contract to purchase property and a house and honor that covenant and pay the full amount of the contract – G-d allows that ownership (or stewardship) while you live out you life but you will not take with you anything you gained by contract from this life. Also if you dishonor your contracts you will receive punishment; be it in this life or the next. But the important thing is to understand covenants with G-d and the importance of such covenants because they have power for blessings beyond this life. Unless you covenant with G-d (according to G-d’s direction) any blessing gained in this life will fade from you when you are resurrected. There is no exception.

While you are focusing on punishments I am focused on the blessings. You are correct in your understanding that no one is punished for any covenant they did not make. This I believe to be true.

My point is the extension of that logic in that no one is blessed eternally of G-d for any covenant they do not make (not make or refuse to take upon themselves), honor and fulfill with him.

The Traveler

[foreverafter]

[ Why are members of the Church permitted to divorce, even for reasons other than sexual sin, and allowed to remarry, even in the temple, without the charge of adultery?

bytor2112,

The Church does not knowingly allow people to divorce for any reason without the sin of adultery, if divorce is allowed at all it's for only very serious transgression by the other spouse. The confusing problem is that rarely do the guilty confess during & after divorce but they go on believeing & saying that they are righteous & worthy & so leaders usually believe them & give them recommends instead of looking deeper into things & having the Spirit of discernment to know something is wrong. It seems that an innocent spouse can remarry without the stain of adultery, but we won't know for sure until the next life. People who date unjustified divorced people also commit adultery because they know that the person may still be married, as Christ warned, despite the divorce & they chose to not make sure.

But even if someone seems justified to divorce an adulterous or abusive spouse, if they date or remarry they too break their sacred temple covenants, when they could have kept the commandment to wait for their spouse to repent. So they lose the promise of the sealing to their spouse & children, which is a huge loss they will feel in the next life. There are always consequences for breaking covenants, even justifiably, they may not be as severe as adultery, but we do lose many blessings if we don't endure to the end with even an unrighteous spouse.

There are many spouses who do remain faithful & keep their covenants to an unrighteous spouse & they will receive all the blessings of their covenants, including their spouse for eternity after they repent, because they chose to obey the higher law & have True Love, which is the Spirit & proof of true righteousness.

Christ's teaching that you posted warns, that even an innocent abandoned spouse breaks their covenants (commits adultery) if they date or remarry plus those they date or remarry do too, for the innocent spouse was still married despite the abandonment & forced divorce of the other. Just because our spouse divorces us does not mean we should go date & remarry, cause according to God we are still married no matter what earthly courts say. Heavenly Father still asks us to keep our sacred marriage covenants & help & wait for our spouse to repent, for we still are married to them. The Prophets have been very clear on this.

Also, most Prophets from Joseph Smith to Pres. Hinckley have taught (though B.R. McConkie seemed to not agree with all the prophets & had an opposing opinion, as you posted, but apostles don't change doctrine only Presidents of the Church do) that we are still held to the high standard of marriage that Christ set up & to abandon & divorce a faithful spouse is still adultery & the punishment they say is still excommunication if the person confesses, which again, most do not, but most instead feel justified & say that they are worthy to go back in the temple & remarry another. So local leaders who don't know the real story, give out recommends without knowing which spouse was guilty (for in every single divorce at least one spouse is seriously abusing the other), But just because someone gets away with committing adultery by remarriage, even in the temple, does not mean they will be married in the next life, the Prophets are very clear that they won't & must endure the torments of their sins & lose their exaltation & spouse & family.

Edited February 28, 2009 by foreverafter

[bytor2112]

Also, most Prophets from Joseph Smith to Pres. Hinckley have taught (though B.R. McConkie seemed to not agree with all the prophets & had an opposing opinion, as you posted, but apostles don't change doctrine only Presidents of the Church do)

Which Prophets? You are aware that past Presidents of the Church divorced their spouses aren't you? As far as McConkie goes, I think his opinion is pretty reliable, he was a general authority for nearly 40 years and is the most cited GA in the church. The article I posted is from a church publication.........

I personally know members that have divorced there spouses an were unsealed as well, and later remarried in the Temple. I think McConkie sums it rather well:

Elder Bruce R. McConkie applied this principle to the subject of divorce: “Divorce is not part of the gospel plan. … But because men in practice do not always live in harmony with gospel standards, the Lord permits divorce for one reason or another, depending upon the spiritual stability of the people involved. … Under the most perfect conditions there would be no divorce permitted except where sex sin was involved. In this day divorces are permitted in accordance with civil statutes, and the divorced persons are permitted by the Church to marry again without the stain of immorality which under a higher system would attend such a course.”

[foreverafter]

bytor,

The Church teaches that every Apostle's or G.A.'s opinions & teachings must square with the Prophets (Pres.) & Joseph F. Smith said that if they do not, we must consider it just their opinion & disregard it. As I said, most Presidents of the Church (Hinckley, Benson, JFSmith, B.Y., Kimball, etc. etc.) have been very clear that divorce is still very much Adultery & Abuse if your spouse was faithful & hasn't committed a huge transgression. Even to just threaten divorce on a faithful spouse is serious abuse & sin one must repent from, let alone to actually do it. Such unjustified divorcers are usually excommunicated & lose all their blessings & must repent & return to their spouse. But you don't see this much because again, most don't confess their guilt or even feel it.

Edited February 28, 2009 by foreverafter

[Traveler]

Which Prophets? You are aware that past Presidents of the Church divorced their spouses aren't you?

......

I am not aware of any president that initiated a divorce. The only divorce I know of with a president was Brigham Young and Fawn Broty (sorry about the spelling). Dispite the fact that Fawn had broken her covenants it was still her and not Brigham that forced the devorce. If you are trying to imply that a president was not upholding their covenants would you please list which prophet and how they were the one to dishonor their covenant.

The Traveler

[Traveler]

bytor,

The Church teaches that every Apostle's or G.A.'s opinions & teachings must square with the Prophets (Pres.) & Joseph F. Smith said that if they do not, we must consider it just their opinion & disregard it. As I said, most Presidents of the Church (Hinckley, Benson, JFSmith, B.Y., Kimball, etc. etc.) have been very clear that divorce is still very much Adultery & Abuse if your spouse was faithful & hasn't committed a huge transgression & such unjustified divorcers are usually excommunicated & lose all their blessings & must repent & return to their spouse. But you don't see this much because again, most don't confess their guilt or even feel it.

In today's world many spouses will not accept back a husband after a divorce. Many have moved on in their lives. The point you seem to not understand or want to accept is that there is a way to repent and return to G-d for everyone. For some the lost blessings from broken covenants are indeed lost forever but there are still blessings that can be obtained by repenting, living and obeying covenant moving forward. Regardless of past sins.

Now is the time to repent and come unto G-d. If someone needs to repent then let’s encourage them to repent. Let the world worry and dwell on how hard or next to impossible it may be. Let the world worry about punishments and if someone that divorced got what they deserve. The good news is that there is a way for everybody - everybody. Let us have a message that all things are possible with G-d because that is the most important truth.

The Traveler

[bytor2112]

bytor,

The Church teaches that every Apostle's or G.A.'s opinions & teachings must square with the Prophets (Pres.) & Joseph F. Smith said that if they do not, we must consider it just their opinion & disregard it. As I said, most Presidents of the Church (Hinckley, Benson, JFSmith, B.Y., Kimball, etc. etc.) have been very clear that divorce is still very much Adultery & Abuse if your spouse was faithful & hasn't committed a huge transgression & such unjustified divorcers are usually excommunicated & lose all their blessings & must repent & return to their spouse. But you don't see this much because again, most don't confess their guilt or even feel it.

First, I am not trying to be difficult........welcome to the site. :) Secondly, the article I sighted was from LDS.ORG. So, what your saying is that the church is posting false information?

Brigham Young and I believe Joseph F. Smith as well, divorced one or more of their wives. Divorce is allowed...it is not preferred and it is nearly always counseled against, but it is allowed and divorced persons are not committing adultry.

Maybe I am missing something you are trying to say:

Example: Man gets married to wife, sealed in the temple and later in life he and his spouse come to the conclusion, that it was a big mistake. They are not happy and are determined to get a divorced. They meet with their Bishop, who counsels them to try and make things work, but they say no way. They have been faithful to their covenants, but they just can't stand the thought of being with one another for another month, much less eternity. So they divorce and and request that they be unsealed. Later both party's remarry other people. They are not committing adultry or any other transgression for that matter.

Example 2: Wife admits to husband that she is unhappy and has been having an affair. She knows she needs to repent so she sees her Bishop and he refers her to the Stake President and a disciplinary council is convened and she is disfellowshipped. Time passes and her repentance is complete and she returns to full fellowship in the church, but she is still unhappy with her marriage and decides to divorce and does and also is unsealed. A year later she remarries........she is not committing adultry.

I know members who have done this, with church approval.

[bytor2112]

I am not aware of any president that initiated a divorce. The only divorce I know of with a president was Brigham Young and Fawn Broty (sorry about the spelling). Dispite the fact that Fawn had broken her covenants it was still her and not Brigham that forced the devorce. If you are trying to imply that a president was not upholding their covenants would you please list which prophet and how they were the one to dishonor their covenant.

The Traveler

Not implying that they broke a covenant, just that they were divorced from a spouse.......not assigning blame either.

[bytor2112]

I am not aware of any president that initiated a divorce. The only divorce I know of with a president was Brigham Young and Fawn Broty (sorry about the spelling). Dispite the fact that Fawn had broken her covenants it was still her and not Brigham that forced the devorce. If you are trying to imply that a president was not upholding their covenants would you please list which prophet and how they were the one to dishonor their covenant.

The Traveler

Ann Eliza Webb.....and I think there were others as well.

[foreverafter]

bytor,

Thank you for the welcome.

As Traveler said, those Prophet's divorces were because their spouse wanted the divorce & that doesn't mean that their spouse got away with it & it wasn't adultery. Probably not since their Prophet spouse was faithful.

I know the examples you used are very common, which makes it very deceiving & seems like divorce isn't adultery anymore. But that is just because it is not understood my most people, nevertheless it doesn't excuse them. The truth on the matter is easy to find if you study what the Prophets have said about it & want to do what's right. Pres. Benson commented on your 1st example, of two spouses agreeing to divorce though neither had committed adultery, etc., they just wanted out. He said that "if they do they will be d." (lose their exaltation). The mere fact that they do not love each other anymore is evidence that they have not kept their covenants like they think they have, or, as the Prophets have said, they would still be in love & not even consider divorcing. When we keep our covenants to our spouse, we remain & grow in love, even if our spouse doesn't.

Your 2nd example proves that the wife didn't really repent fully & the Prophets teach that it would be adultery for her to divorce her faithful spouse like that. I guess we must agree to dissagree on this. But just because few understand these things & live by them today, does not mean they are not in force & that unjustified divorce is not adultery.

Pres. Joseph Fielding Smith said that the sacredness of marriage has been almost completely, if not entirely, lost & that was 50 years ago. Today hardly anyone understands the sacredness of covenants & marriage anymore or lives by it. It is sad because the consequences still stand, even if not applied in this life, for even young children understand the seriousness & lifelong nature of marriage, so adults have no excuse. We all know right from wrong & what would be hurtful to our spouse.

If what you say was true & a spouse could divorce their spouse today for any reason, than who would take that risk & marry? No one in their right mind would marry just until their spouse wanted to leave & find someone new & different or just got tired of them. We marry because we are assured by God that it's safe to give our whole heart & soul cause we're guaranteed to have our spouse for eternity if we keep our covenants, even if our spouse won't. God does not toy with hearts & children's lives that way nor does he allow us to. Most marriages reach a point where it's hard to stay in the game & that is why Heavenly Father makes us promise & commit we will. Just because the world has passed corrupt no fault divorce laws that let people out of marriage for light reasons, does not mean God honors those divorces.

Some leaders do understand these things. As one wise & knowing & seasoned Stake Patriarch said, "If a unjustified divorced man even puts him name on one of those dating web sites, he commits adultery."

Edited February 28, 2009 by foreverafter

[prisonchaplain]

This string was started so that I may learn. And, I truly have. Your church has a reputation for being family friendly and family-oriented. Your doctrines overall support that "book" on you. I'm wondering if the apparent liberality on divorce and remarriage in general is due to the added expectations given to couples who have their marriages sealed in a temple?

[foreverafter]

I'm wondering if the apparent liberality on divorce and remarriage in general is due to the added expectations given to couples who have their marriages sealed in a temple?

Chaplain, if anything, a temple marriage puts even more condemnation on a couple if they break it, not less.

I am glad you are on here, exploring our values as LDS & sharing your own. I have enjoyed & agreed with (& I know our Prophets do too) how you uphold Christ's teachings on divorce. I have non-member relatives & friends who are appalled at the way many LDS seem to be breaking their sacred marriage covenants & remarrying, when their own churches teach & stand by what Christ teaches. I try to reassure them about our church & though it may not seem so at times at the lower levels, our Church & Prophets stand by what Christ taught about divorce just as much. But just because the majority believe & do what they do regarding divorce these days, does not reflect what the Prophet's teach & how things will really be dealt with in the hereafter when "what went on behind closed doors" is finally known & things are put right & the guilty helped to finally confess & repent.

Edited February 28, 2009 by foreverafter

[Traveler]

This string was started so that I may learn. And, I truly have. Your church has a reputation for being family friendly and family-oriented. Your doctrines overall support that "book" on you. I'm wondering if the apparent liberality on divorce and remarriage in general is due to the added expectations given to couples who have their marriages sealed in a temple?

I sometimes feel that I am not communicating the truth correctly. The problem is not with the marriage of someone that has sinned nor is it a remarriage of someone that has sinned; the problem is divorce and the breaking of the covenant of chastity which is paramount in marriage as a divine covenant. Yes - in many cases divorce is adultery. Even after divorce there is strong temptation to continue with adultery and despise chastity.

But as we know from scripture that Jesus when confronted by someone "taken" in adultery for which the law and the scriptures indicated death (by stoning) was appropriate before G-d. Jesus also indicated that there was a “more excellent” way in G-d. Jesus told the adulteress that he did not condemn her and that she was to go her way and sin no more.

I believe this is in the heart of all Christians that are spiritually born of G-d. Not only do I believe that Christians love the sinner and hate the sin but that Christians welcome into full fellowship of the saints and respect as a covenant child of G-d to all that repent.

Does this mean that a spouse who was wronged by an adulterous husband must accept him back as her husband if he repents? No it does not – because of divorce she is free to marry according to her choice – as is any man or woman but as a Christian she also has every right to let the sin of her former husband go, forgive him and condemn him no more and to forever be free of any ill feelings towards him or caused by him. But if she weds another that is her choice and if he (the adulterous husband) repents and another will have him in marriage then I believe is possible through the mercy of G-d that they marry according to the covenant of G-d. I do not pretend that it is easy to repent or to be spiritually born of G-d. All that I say is that with G-d it is possible. No one that desires to return to G-d is outside of his merciful reach. But if the husband does not repent he will live forever in adultery (as all will live in their sins that do not repent) all of which has nothing to do with whether or not his former wife has or has not forgiven him. And may I add that forgiveness is a necessary part of repentance and to be forgiven.

The Traveler

[Traveler]

Chaplain, if anything, a temple marriage puts even more condemnation on a couple if they break it, not less.

......

I agree with all that you have said. However, I wish that we could all see the blessings of marriage and the greater eternal blessings of temple marriage. Focus on the blessing and not the curse of failed covenants. Let us all celebrate all marriages intended if just for this life to conform to divine direction. Divine marriage of a man and a woman is a great blessing and the best possible way for society to insure humans survive and prosper through generations. No nation can survive to the next generation without divine marriages. Nothing else will come even close the bringing the blessings to societies and nations that respect men and women that foster another generation to such a noble ideal by extending their marriage to their children.

We will likely learn and experience what becomes of a nation that would rather divorce for lust than live by covenant in marriage.

One thing I have learned is that it is much easier to repent and come unto G-d by avoiding sin than it is to repent and come unto G-d after indulging in sin.

The Traveler

Edited February 28, 2009 by Traveler

[prisonchaplain]

Forever, thank you for your support. Yes, you seem to confirm what I was getting at. Those who have marriages sealed in an LDS temple are married forever. So, the expectations would seem signficantly higher. Often here I get the sense that Gentile marriages, being "only until death," are seen as less committed (not so much meant as a slam, but the difference between a marriage lasting at most 6 decades or so vs. eternity is, well...infinite). So, since there is this distinction, perhaps approach to divorce in non-sealed marriages gets treated with less rigor.

[FunkyTown]

I would like to vocally support PC in this, because what he is teaching is biblical.

To put forth a divorce and remarry for -any reason- other than abandonment or adultery is the equal of adultery.

That having been said: PC, you can't be too surprised at the majority reaction here. When Jesus said that, everyone in that time said it would be better not to be married.

The funny thing is: We excuse ourselves of sins we are guilty of, rationalizing that they aren't as bad as (Insert other sin here). The truth is that we've all sinned.

Now, on to the original topic: Who asked for the divorce due to unfaithfulness? If the husband asked for the divorce and she pushed for reconciliation, a case could be made that she was repentant and this might be 'abandonment'. If she cheated on him and then wasn't truly repentant, this would be a sin.

In her defence, however(Though I would never tell the person seeking council of this because the least degree of sin can not be counselled as being okay), if she didn't marry she would be tempted to many many other sins. If she recognized her weakness and went to God with it, with a contrite and broken spirit, I can't imagine Him not forgiving her and allowing her to remarry.

[bytor2112]

It is my understanding that Jesus taught divorce was not acceptable unless fornication had occurred. (Matthew 5:31-32) Why does the LDS church allow divorce when not for this reason? Shouldn't these people either be disfellowshipped or excommunicated? Why does the church permit re-marrying?

Answer

Dallin H. Oaks responded to this question in 2007:

In ancient times and even under tribal laws in some countries where we now have members, men have power to divorce their wives for any trivial thing. Such unrighteous oppression of women was rejected by the Savior, who declared:

“Moses because of the hardness of your hearts suffered you to put away your wives: but from the beginning it was not so.

“And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery” (Matthew 19:8–9).

The kind of marriage required for exaltation—eternal in duration and godlike in quality—does not contemplate divorce. In the temples of the Lord, couples are married for all eternity. But some marriages do not progress toward that ideal. Because “of the hardness of [our] hearts,” the Lord does not currently enforce the consequences of the celestial standard. He permits divorced persons to marry again without the stain of immorality specified in the higher law. Unless a divorced member has committed serious transgressions, he or she can become eligible for a temple recommend under the same worthiness standards that apply to other members.[1]

Edited March 1, 2009 by bytor2112

[foreverafter]

There are at least 2 things to consider with Elder Oaks comments.

One that he says, if a divorced person has not committed serious transgression then they would be worthy for the temple. I think everyone here agrees with that. But, if a divorced person was abusive, adulterous or abandoned their spouse for insufficient reasons, then the church has said those things are huge transgressions & so they would not be worthy to enter the temple or remarry & would most likely be excommunicated, which is what Pres. Hinckley said was the penalty for such.

The next thing to consider is if he was saying the same thing as Elder McConkie believed, than that again is opposite what the current & recent Presidents of the Church have been saying about divorce, that we are still held to the higher law & it does still carry the sin of adultery, if they divorced a faithful spouse. And we are told we must listen to Presidents over Apostles if their teachings ever differ.

Edited March 1, 2009 by foreverafter

[bytor2112]

I know the examples you used are very common, which makes it very deceiving & seems like divorce isn't adultery anymore. But that is just because it is not understood my most people, nevertheless it doesn't excuse them. The truth on the matter is easy to find if you study what the Prophets have said about it & want to do what's right. Pres. Benson commented on your 1st example, of two spouses agreeing to divorce though neither had committed adultery, etc., they just wanted out. He said that "if they do they will be d." (lose their exaltation). The mere fact that they do not love each other anymore is evidence that they have not kept their covenants like they think they have, or, as the Prophets have said, they would still be in love & not even consider divorcing. When we keep our covenants to our spouse, we remain & grow in love, even if our spouse doesn't.

Sister, with all due respect, that isn't always the case. People don't always grow closer together and if they divorce and later remarry, it is not adultery. If the church and it's authorized Priesthood leaders allow people to remarry in the Temple, then there new marriage is sealed in the heavens and they are not guilty of adultery. DO you honestly think that they would be given a Temple recommend if they were guilty of adultery? Are you suggesting that if they remarry, they need to attend a church disciplinary court and possibly face excommunication for adultery?

Your 2nd example proves that the wife didn't really repent fully & the Prophets teach that it would be adultery for her to divorce her faithful spouse like that. I guess we must agree to dissagree on this. But just because few understand these things & live by them today, does not mean they are not in force & that unjustified divorce is not adultery.

No, it proves that her marriage isn't going to be eternal. If she has been through repentance and has been told that her repentance is complete by her Stake President, she will not be in condemnation of adultery. And if she remarry's and is worthy of a Temple recommend then she can be sealed to her new spouse, provided that her former sealing has been ....Unsealed (not sureof the term)

[bytor2112]

One that he says, if a divorced person has not committed serious transgression then they would be worthy for the temple. I think everyone here agrees with that. But, if a divorced person was abusive, adulterous or abandoned their spouse for insufficient reasons, then the church has said those things are huge transgressions & so they would not be worthy to enter the temple or remarry & would most likely be excommunicated, which is what Pres. Hinckley said was the penalty for such.

You do realize that people can repent and through the atonement be made clean of past wrongs like adultery or abuse? And if they have repented, even through excommunication and are rebaptized, they can obtain a Temple recommend and remarry in the Temple. We have a Branch President in our Stake that did exactly that. Your comments suggest that the atonement is limited in it's effect and it isn't. There are likely member of this site who are in similar circumstances.

The next thing to consider is if he was saying the same thing as Elder McConkie believed, than that again is opposite what the current & recent Presidents of the Church have been saying about divorce, that we are still held to the higher law & it does still carry the sin of adultery, if they divorced a faithful spouse. And we are told we must listen to Presidents over Apostles if their teachings ever differ.

So you think that McConkie and Oaks are dead wrong.......and you are right? Honestly, you haven't included a verifiable quote from a President of the church to justify your claims. I don't think you will be able to. It is clear and you are very right about the ideal and what the standard should be, but we are not held to that standard in this life. Also, to clarify, where actual adultery exists....meaning physical intimacy......they absolutely must repent of that transgression.

[foreverafter]

bytor,

The church is not the one who usually decides if a person is worthy of the temple or isn't committing adultery or not. The person themselves declares whether they are worthy for the temple & if their divorce was justified & so leaders give recommends if they don't know anything more than what the persons tells them. So it's rather easy for a deceptive person in denial to get into the temple, but the church has said that if a person deceives their way in, then their sealing is not valid.

On all the other points, I'm sorry, but from all that I have studied from the Prophets on these issues & I cannot find any President of the Church who teaches what you are saying, just the opposite in fact. All the Prophets that I have read from say a justified divorce is rare & that if we divorce a faithful spouse we commit adultery & lose our exaltation, if we don't repent & return to our spouse, if they want us back.

So, how about lets just agree to disagree. For I must side with the Prophets on this one. But I appreciated the discussion, thank you.