Divorce and Remarriage - What happens to Guilty?

[Hemidakota]

Hopefully there is marriage between man and woman. If not, it would be a great disappointment to be there - ALONE and APART.

Unless you had the opportunity in looking across the veil, you find your assumption is not correct. GOD, CHRIST, and many others that stood there have companions.

[prisonchaplain]

Not so, at least not in LDS theology. The marital covenant I made along with my wife was made to God. She and I each covenanted with God, not with each other, for our marriage.

How does this work? I get the impression that there is divorce and remarriage in your church? So, if a covenant with God is broken, how does that work?

So how does a Biblical "literalist"** decide when a condition (adultery, abandonment) has been fulfilled "egregiously enough" that the divorce is allowed? This is a non-problem in LDS circles, of course; but if the written Bible (in English translation, I presume) is the highest authority, how is the judgment justified?

If adultery is committed and the innocent spouse does not believe the partner can be trusted, she is permitted to divorce and remarry. We do not understand the Bible to command divorce, but to permit. So, the answer to your question is that the victim gets to decide. Likewise with abandonment. In most cases, the leaving is pretty clear. The innocent one is not expected to wait a few months to see if the other will return. Having said this, in healthy churches that decision will likely come after some spiritual counseling, and the offended spouse may actually seek approval from the pastor, or perhaps even the Elders of the church (Elders = mature leaders of the congregation, not young missionaries).

[bert10]

Jesus did not give pearls to the wicked. He answered them with what they could understand. Jesus was referring to weddings. After the resurrection the works of salvation of God for men has ceased. At the last resurrection after the Millennium everything is already settled. We shall have a thousand years to sort out baptism of water and of fire which are required. We will have 1000 years to settle the line of the priesthood From Adam to the last generation. We will have a thousand years to sort out the marriage business for all mankind.

Marriage is Oness.....and it shall go on after resurrection. For marriage is the natural consequence to Love. And according to Paul Only Love shall not fail and shall not cease like tongues nor Fail like prophecies nor vanish away.

Peace be unto you

bert10

I don't understand, I thought the Bible taught there will be no marriage in Heaven.

When Jesus answered in response to a question concerning a woman who had been married multiple times in her life —whom would she be married to in heaven (Matthew 22:23-30)

...He responded "For in the resurrection they neither marry, nor are given in marriage, but are as the angels of God in heaven."

Surely Jesus spoke the truth here didn't He?

[Vort]

The marital covenant I made along with my wife was made to God. She and I each covenanted with God, not with each other, for our marriage.

How does this work? I get the impression that there is divorce and remarriage in your church? So, if a covenant with God is broken, how does that work?

Matthew 16:19 records the Lord's words to Peter: "I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven." These keys of binding and loosing on earth and in heaven are called by Latter-day Saints "the sealing keys". We believe that the First Presidency of the kingdom of God on earth holds these same keys that were given to Peter and then restored through the Prophet Joseph Smith.

Thus, when people are sealed in marriage, it is through the instrumentality of these sealing keys. The authority to exercise these keys is conferred upon certain men, called "sealers" (at least in the common LDS vernacular), who in turn seal couples in the temples. If, for whatever reason, it is determined that a sealing is to be broken, it must likewise be done through the sealing keys. The First Presidency does not confer this authority on anyone else, as far as I know; I believe every "dissolution of sealings" must be personally approved by the First Presidency.

Mormons will sometimes point to the lower-than-average divorce rate in the LDS Church as a meaningful measure of the virtue of the restored gospel. I suppose this makes some sense, but my own feeling is that a divorce rate of a few percent lower than the world's is a shameful thing, and that we as a people are falling far short of keeping our covenants in this area. I make no attempt to justify the relatively common practice of divorce in the LDS Church, except to say that the Lord allows the practice among us, for now at least. Doubtless this will change some day.

If adultery is committed and the innocent spouse does not believe the partner can be trusted, she is permitted to divorce and remarry. We do not understand the Bible to command divorce, but to permit. So, the answer to your question is that the victim gets to decide. Likewise with abandonment. In most cases, the leaving is pretty clear. The innocent one is not expected to wait a few months to see if the other will return. Having said this, in healthy churches that decision will likely come after some spiritual counseling, and the offended spouse may actually seek approval from the pastor, or perhaps even the Elders of the church (Elders = mature leaders of the congregation, not young missionaries).

You had mentioned that you didn't see a single isolated incident of adultery or short-term abandonment as a free ticket out of a marriage. (Or words to that effect -- I don't remember exactly what you wrote, but I think that was the gist of it.) I was wondering how you (either you personally or the general "you") decided when to counsel "stay" and when to counsel "leave" based on this non-clear-cut difference.

In thinking about this a bit more deeply, I suppose my question is one of authorization. When an LDS priesthood leader (quorum president, bishop, stake or mission president, general authority) counsels with a member, it is understood that the authority to counsel and to receive revelation on behalf of the person being counseled derives from the man's priesthood authority and the keys he holds as a priesthood leader. I gather that these same concepts don't exist in your religious world, or at least not in the same way they do among Latter-day Saints. So I guess I'm ultimately wondering where you feel your divine power and ability to counsel derives from.

Hope that makes sense.

[Just_A_Guy]

Hi Vort--

Not so, at least not in LDS theology. The marital covenant I made along with my wife was made to God. She and I each covenanted with God, not with each other, for our marriage.

This doesn't really ring true to me; and my recollection is that the words of the actual ordinance are ambiguous as to precisely whom the covenant is with. Can you point me to some authority that positively states that the marriage covenant is not with the other spouse?

If, for whatever reason, it is determined that a sealing is to be broken, it must likewise be done through the sealing keys. The First Presidency does not confer this authority on anyone else, as far as I know; I believe every "dissolution of sealings" must be personally approved by the First Presidency.

It seems to me that other functions previously assumed to be the sole province of the First Presidency have since been "delegated out" (under the First Presidency's direction, of course). Do you see any reason why approval of sealing cancellations couldn't similarly be "delegated"?

[Jim108]

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?

"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."

Hello Prisonchaplain. What is under the blood "is" forgotten. We are all wretched and who are we to look and point at others and claim just how wretched they are. Just how wretched are you.....and I. I agree that divorce is a sin, but why is this sin so much more then our own. Sin is black and white. It either is or is not and there are no degrees to it. I know it is hard to believe that theft is just as black as murder. It is sin. period.

"... perhaps giving herself over to more extensive gospel work."

Why, the sin was washed away almost twothousand years ago. All she need do is ask for forgivness. Jesus is enough. Jesus is all she needs. Believe in the Cross.

The remarriage is fine. Thank the Lord Jesus, Jim

[Jim108]

There is no such thing as "unconditional love".

"There is no such thing as "unconditional love".

Would you like to tell Jesus that?

[Just_A_Guy]

"There is no such thing as "unconditional love".

Would you like to tell Jesus that?

Doubt he'd mind saying it to one of Jesus' apostles. :)

[prisonchaplain]

Sin has consequences. Yes, Jesus' blood covers all. We cannot outsin the love of God. On the other hand, when it comes to human consequences some sins are worse than others. Child molestation damages a life for life. Adultery harms both the offended partner, and the children. The same cannot be said about fudging on your tax return to get an extra $500 deduction. Unrepented of, all these sins are damnable. However, even after repentence, there are repercussion for molestation and adultery. Scripture also informs us that sin is bad, but some sins are against our flesh, which is the Temple of the Holy Spirit (so, by implication, they are worse).

BTW, nobody should interpret these comments as a condemnation of adulterers and molesters, as if to say my sins are nothing compared to their sins. Rather, it is to say that we who follow Christ, must indeed follow Christ. When we stumble and fall, we can expect forgiveness AND discipline.

[Jim108]

Sin has consequences. Yes, Jesus' blood covers all. We cannot outsin the love of God. On the other hand, when it comes to human consequences some sins are worse than others. Child molestation damages a life for life. Adultery harms both the offended partner, and the children. The same cannot be said about fudging on your tax return to get an extra $500 deduction. Unrepented of, all these sins are damnable. However, even after repentence, there are repercussion for molestation and adultery. Scripture also informs us that sin is bad, but some sins are against our flesh, which is the Temple of the Holy Spirit (so, by implication, they are worse).

BTW, nobody should interpret these comments as a condemnation of adulterers and molesters, as if to say my sins are nothing compared to their sins. Rather, it is to say that we who follow Christ, must indeed follow Christ. When we stumble and fall, we can expect forgiveness AND discipline.

I do not think you understand what it is I am trying to say. I am not bringing the sin of a child molester down to the level of a tax evader. I am bringing all sin up to the level of the worst possible sin. You must understand that all sin is sin and it is an abomination to God. A simple lie is equal to murder in the third or even child molestation. We can not think of sin from an earthly point of view as ou laws do, but rather from Gods. Yes, to us it seems natural to say the molester is much more sinfull then the tax evader, but that is a human point of view. Sin is or is not. God can never accept any sin and it is only by our lord, our God Jesus that we have a chance.

"When we stumble and fall, we can expect forgiveness AND discipline."

Discipline, from who. You, Bishops, Presidents...who. Who among us is without sin to discipline any of us. Let him throw the first rock. When we accepted Jesus into our hearts and were forgiven of our sins, all of our sins were forgiven at that moment. Past, present and future sins. God knows all of our sins before we are born. The work was done on the cross all you need to do is accept it. When you say discipline you empower man and deminish God. You and I are too wretched to discipline anyone and God forgives and loves. Live by the cross. "It is done" Believe in it. Believe in the living God. Believe in Jesus the Christ. Jim

[Vort]

"There is no such thing as "unconditional love".

Would you like to tell Jesus that?

Why would I tell Jesus what he already knows?

[Vort]

Can you point me to some authority that positively states that the marriage covenant is not with the other spouse?

I can do far better; I can cite the covenant itself. If you don't remember it, go do some sealings. At no point is a promise made from one spouse to the other. All covenants are made before and with God.

It seems to me that other functions previously assumed to be the sole province of the First Presidency have since been "delegated out" (under the First Presidency's direction, of course). Do you see any reason why approval of sealing cancellations couldn't similarly be "delegated"?

Nope. In fact, with the Church pushing 15 million with no signs of slowing, I assume that the First Presidency will eventually be forced to delegate some of this work, unless they start demanding a more Christ-like approach to marriage and divorce. But so far as I know, they have never delegated this authority in the past and continue to exercise it on their own.

If anyone knows this to be incorrect, please chime in.

[Just_A_Guy]

I can do far better; I can cite the covenant itself. If you don't remember it, go do some sealings. At no point is a promise made from one spouse to the other. All covenants are made before and with God.

Hi Vort. My recollection is that while the covenants are explicitly made before God, the verbiage never specifies who the covenant is actually with. I've always associated it as a three-way covenant.

I guess I'll have to take you up on your offer and go refresh my memory!

[bytor2112]

I do not think you understand what it is I am trying to say. I am not bringing the sin of a child molester down to the level of a tax evader. I am bringing all sin up to the level of the worst possible sin. You must understand that all sin is sin and it is an abomination to God. A simple lie is equal to murder in the third or even child molestation. We can not think of sin from an earthly point of view as ou laws do, but rather from Gods. Yes, to us it seems natural to say the molester is much more sinfull then the tax evader, but that is a human point of view. Sin is or is not. God can never accept any sin and it is only by our lord, our God Jesus that we have a chance.

"When we stumble and fall, we can expect forgiveness AND discipline."

Discipline, from who. You, Bishops, Presidents...who. Who among us is without sin to discipline any of us. Let him throw the first rock. When we accepted Jesus into our hearts and were forgiven of our sins, all of our sins were forgiven at that moment. Past, present and future sins. God knows all of our sins before we are born. The work was done on the cross all you need to do is accept it. When you say discipline you empower man and deminish God. You and I are too wretched to discipline anyone and God forgives and loves. Live by the cross. "It is done" Believe in it. Believe in the living God. Believe in Jesus the Christ. Jim

Jim,

I am a bit confused. According to your profile you are LDS, but your posts sound Evangelical? A mistake on your profile perhaps?

[prisonchaplain]

I do not think you understand what it is I am trying to say. I am not bringing the sin of a child molester down to the level of a tax evader. I am bringing all sin up to the level of the worst possible sin. You must understand that all sin is sin and it is an abomination to God. A simple lie is equal to murder in the third or even child molestation.

You might have caught in my response that I said, "All these sins, unrepented of, are damnable." So, yes, there is a sense in which sin is sin, and all of it brings death. But, that is not the discussion of this string. Here we are dealing with a Christian believer who knowingly sins, and what might be the outcome, following sincere repentence.

We can not think of sin from an earthly point of view as ou laws do, but rather from Gods. Yes, to us it seems natural to say the molester is much more sinfull then the tax evader, but that is a human point of view. Sin is or is not. God can never accept any sin and it is only by our lord, our God Jesus that we have a chance.

In the sense that all sin must be repentented of, and that every sin requires the shed blood of Christ as atonement, then you are correct. On the other hand, how a Christian community walks with a errant sinner who repents may well differ, depending on the sin.

"When we stumble and fall, we can expect forgiveness AND discipline."

Discipline, from who. You, Bishops, Presidents...who. Who among us is without sin to discipline any of us. Let him throw the first rock. When we accepted Jesus into our hearts and were forgiven of our sins, all of our sins were forgiven at that moment. Past, present and future sins. God knows all of our sins before we are born. The work was done on the cross all you need to do is accept it. When you say discipline you empower man and deminish God. You and I are too wretched to discipline anyone and God forgives and loves. Live by the cross. "It is done" Believe in it. Believe in the living God. Believe in Jesus the Christ. Jim

Is this why the Apostle Paul commanded the Corinthian church to expel the immoral brother (who was bedding his mother in law)? Is this why the Apostle Paul also commands that believers not even share a meal with those who claim Christ, but insist on the righteousness of their sin. Is this why John the Revelator warns against the sins of the Nicolatians, and blames churches that tolerate sinful behavior in their midst. At one point Paul says that since we shall one day judge angels we should be able to resolve small quarrels WITHIN the household of faith, rather than going to public courts.

No, Brother Jim, I disagree. The Church is supposed to exercise discipline. Judgment begins within the household of faith. Quite frankly, this is one area where I believe LDS do better than we evangelicals.

[prisonchaplain]

Jim,

I am a bit confused. According to your profile you are LDS, but your posts sound Evangelical? A mistake on your profile perhaps?

His posts sound evangelistic, rather than evangelical. He seems focused on the salvation message, saying that all sins can lead to hell, but all sins can be forgiven. It's a solid call to salvation, but, imho what's confusing is that we are discussing sinful behavior amongst the already converted.

[Jim108]

You might have caught in my response that I said, "All these sins, unrepented of, are damnable." So, yes, there is a sense in which sin is sin, and all of it brings death. But, that is not the discussion of this string. Here we are dealing with a Christian believer who knowingly sins, and what might be the outcome, following sincere repentence.

In the sense that all sin must be repentented of, and that every sin requires the shed blood of Christ as atonement, then you are correct. On the other hand, how a Christian community walks with a errant sinner who repents may well differ, depending on the sin.

Is this why the Apostle Paul commanded the Corinthian church to expel the immoral brother (who was bedding his mother in law)? Is this why the Apostle Paul also commands that believers not even share a meal with those who claim Christ, but insist on the righteousness of their sin. Is this why John the Revelator warns against the sins of the Nicolatians, and blames churches that tolerate sinful behavior in their midst. At one point Paul says that since we shall one day judge angels we should be able to resolve small quarrels WITHIN the household of faith, rather than going to public courts.

No, Brother Jim, I disagree. The Church is supposed to exercise discipline. Judgment begins within the household of faith. Quite frankly, this is one area where I believe LDS do better than we evangelicals.

My profile says that I am.... LDS / Mormon / Christian This is the only selection that include Christian when I sighned up. It is true. I am Christian, Born Again, Evangelical. Doest this bother you for some reason?

No, Brother Jim, I disagree. The Church is supposed to exercise discipline.

No, God may discipline if he so chooses, but not man. You and I are not worthy to discipline anyone. You and I do not live a day without sin. But God will not discipline when the sin has already been forgiven, even for those sins that are in your future. Prisonchaplain do you not believe in the cross? When you are born again, your sins have been washed away. It is not your place to discipline for sins that God has forgiven. Either you believe in the cross or not. What is it going to be for you. Dont you see. It was done two thousand years ago. When Jesus died on the cross all of our sins died with him. All we need to do is believe with all our heart and soul. There is no need for discipline from man. Twothousand years ago Jesus died on that cross for my sins that I have not even done yet. You need to believe. You do not have a place in the forgiveness business. You are only a wretched man just as I am. Jim

[Vort]

"No, Brother Jim, I disagree. The Church is supposed to exercise discipline."

No, God may discipline if he so chooses, but not man. You and I are not worthy to discipline anyone.

The kingdom of God may, indeed must, discipline its members, else the Shepherd does not care for his sheep.

The kingdom of God on earth is the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

Ergo: The Church is supposed to exercise discipline.

Either you believe in the cross or not. What is it going to be for you. Dont you see. It was done two thousand years ago. When Jesus died on the cross all of our sins died with him. All we need to do is believe with all our heart and soul.

And, as Christ taught, if you believe him you will love him, and if you love him you will keep his commandments. Those commandments include being baptized and becoming subject to the kingdom of God (i.e. the LDS Church).

Glad I could clarify that a bit.

[Vort]

Is this why the Apostle Paul commanded the Corinthian church to expel the immoral brother (who was bedding his mother in law)?

You mean stepmother? I'm thinking of I Cor 5:1. Or are you referring to something else?

[Vort]

My profile says that I am.... LDS / Mormon / Christian This is the only selection that include Christian when I sighned up.

When I look at the selections, I see the following list:

• Mormon / LDS / Christian
• Agnostic
• Atheist
• Buddhist
• Catholic
• Christian
• Hindu
• Jewish
• Mulsim
• N/A
• No Answer
• Other
• Protestant
• Scientologist
• Taoist

Right there, sixth choice. In alphabetical order, even.

EDIT: Mods, might it be worthwhile to change that selection to "Christian (Non-LDS)"?

ANOTHER EDIT: Another option: We already have LDS, Catholic, and Protestant listed out as Christian groups. Might it be worthwhile to add "Evangelical Christian" and "Christian (other)"?

Edited March 16, 2009 by Vort

[Jim108]

The kingdom of God may, indeed must, discipline its members, else the Shepherd does not care for his sheep.

The kingdom of God on earth is the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

Ergo: The Church is supposed to exercise discipline.

And, as Christ taught, if you believe him you will love him, and if you love him you will keep his commandments. Those commandments include being baptized and becoming subject to the kingdom of God (i.e. the LDS Church).

Glad I could clarify that a bit.

"The kingdom of God may, indeed must, discipline its members"

Oh, I see, when Jesus forgives it is still up to man to punish. I think that empowers man and not God. ...and when man is empowered corruption is soon to follow. Absolute power corrupts absolutely. Gee I think I read that somewhere around here.

[Vort]

"The kingdom of God may, indeed must, discipline its members"

Oh, I see, when Jesus forgives it is still up to man to punish.

Clearly, ewe dew knot C.

[prisonchaplain]

You mean stepmother? I'm thinking of I Cor 5:1. Or are you referring to something else?

Youch! You are right...

[prisonchaplain]

"The kingdom of God may, indeed must, discipline its members"

Oh, I see, when Jesus forgives it is still up to man to punish. I think that empowers man and not God. ...and when man is empowered corruption is soon to follow. Absolute power corrupts absolutely. Gee I think I read that somewhere around here.

Jim, you can argue against church discipline all you want. Paul ordered it, and John the Revelator condemned a couple of churches that did not exercise it. Absolute power does corrupt absolutely, but liberty is not license, and part of shepherding includes the rod as well as the carrot. Your argument is not with me or Vort, but with the Apostle Paul, and with John the Revelator. Ultimately, it is against Scripture.

[Madriglace]

"The kingdom of God may, indeed must, discipline its members"

Oh, I see, when Jesus forgives it is still up to man to punish. I think that empowers man and not God. ...and when man is empowered corruption is soon to follow. Absolute power corrupts absolutely. Gee I think I read that somewhere around here.

The atonement of the Savior in the Garden was absolute ... as LDS we belive that when we reach the age of accountability (at 8 yrs or when we choose to enter the waters of baptizm) we choose accept that atonement and then become accountable for how we use it. Forgiveness is the the Lord's job ours is to forgive ... however we believe that with our choice to sin come consequences and those we must deal with no matter what ... they just do not go away. When we in our imperfect journey choose to comitt that which we know is sin we are obligated to begin the repentance process to bring us back in tune with the Savior which includes recognizing our sin, asking forgiveness, making restitution, forsaking the sin, having a complete change of heart and enduring to the end. We as LDS believe that our leaders in some instances are called as Judges in Israel and by authority are called to preside when the sin is such that our own repentance needs assistance. Some things that would jeopardize our standing in the Kingdom are beyond what we can do on our own. The word discipline does not accurately portray what happens in a discipline proceeding. This is about love and helping the person move forward with the repentance process. The Savior came to save us FROM our sins not IN our sins. Prisionchaplin is correct when he says that this process is more unique to us than other deniominations. Respect for what is our understnading of what is required is appreciated.