Divorced. Same Ward?


Recommended Posts

My ex-wife and I got divorced about 10 years ago. We have been living in different states for several years now, and I am looking at moving to live near her so that I can be close to my child. She has been telling me that it would be best if we were not in the same Ward or even the same Stake.

Does anyone know of anything that the church has published, or any talks by the general authorities that would support or refute this? To me it seems that for my daughter, it would be best if she didn't have to jump from ward to ward and from Stake to Stake. Didn't have to create two separate groups of friends, and deal with separate teachers.

We have all gotten along very well.

Please someone give me some information that I can use to research this. I want to do what is best for my daughter, regardless of whether it is comfortable for me.

Thanks much in advance.

Bean

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I know of no counsel that supports or refutes this. I think this is more of coming to some kind of understanding and compromise between the two of you. Both of you should have what's best for the child in mind. I'm not sure why after 10 years of divorce it would really matter to her. Just my opinion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't think there is anything in writing on such a situation. I would imagine that the best thing to do is counsel with your bishop and make a decision.

My advice is that if your ex-wife doesn't WANT you to be in the same ward, then if you decide to move to that ward, you will have some problems. You may get along now, but doing something against what she wants will most likely change that. And you know how a ward is--it's like an extended family. That's probably why she doesn't want you in the same ward. It would feel like you've moved into her family (at least that's my take on her wishes).

I have a friend who is divorced and her children spend time with their father in a different stake and some time in my friends ward/stake. The kids actually like it because they are able to get to have friends all over the area--not just in 1 ward. Her son had a farewell for his mission in 2 wards--and 2 wards are supporting him on his mission. So there are advantages to having the kids go to 2 wards in different stakes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yep, it sounds to me like that is just your ex-wife's preference. Personally, I agree with her on the ward thing, though. That would be awkward. I wouldn't think being in the same stake would be a problem though (unless it's a Utah/Idaho stake that covers a whole 2.5 blocks).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We have a divorced couple in our ward that got married to somebody else in the same ward... they used to all be in the same ward until recently when one couple moved to our ward but still in the same stake. We all know them very well because our ward and their old ward used to be one ward that recently split. Is this making sense?

Anyway... we're not the uppity type of ward who gets in on everybody's business, so it works okay. I would see how this could be a big deal if the ward members give you guys a hard time about it. You have to decide for yourselves which is best for your family. As far as the children are concerned, the lessons are all the same whichever ward you go to. The only thing I see that would be difficult is knowing which Primary Activity you are attending and when you have primary presentations in sacrament meeting, which sacrament meeting they would NOT be attending so that the primary leadership won't assign your children speaking parts if they're not gonna be there.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

my personal opinion, same stake, different wards. my stepson is in that situation. i think it works out ok for him, when he goes to stake activities he always knows someone there (both units have the same stake announcements) but he doesn't have to worry about the mess that sometimes comes with having everyone in the same place. my husband and his ex don't get along so he tries to keep things separate. it allows him to keep that distance between the two and still have some consistency. also if there is a church issue (who makes decisions or plans on something) the one stake pres can help resove it and you aren't involving 2 different ones.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There is no requirement for people to move to separate wards. That said, sometimes it is easier for different wards for the families involved. I seriously doubt a separate stake is necessary, as the few times wards collide would be at stake events and conferences.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't think she means "officially." I think she means for her individual case.

We have a good man and a good woman who are divorced from each other attending our ward. 3 of their children and many of their grandchildren do as well.

It seems like it would be awkward, but it also seems like it's good for the kids.

Each case is different because people are different. I don't think you're going to get any advice one way or the other from your church leaders. I might listen to the advice of your x-wife though.

It's ultimately your decision.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We have a good man and a good woman who are divorced from each other attending our ward.

It is impossible for both to be "good". In every divorce at least one spouse is committing sin worthy of excommunication, sometimes it's both. Most people don't have the Spirit to discern who the errant person is though & so they aren't able to help the errant spouse repent or protect the other spouse. But the Church's pamphlet on Spouse Abuse put out in 1997, teaches that all close family, friends & leaders have a serious responsibility to discern which one needs help in repenting & which one needs total support because of the abuse from the other, divorce is always spouse abuse by one or the other or both, not to mention abuse on the children.

In answer to this thread's question, the best thing for the children & everyone else, even for ward members to see & learn what true Charity looks like, is to have both their Mom & Dad sit with the children as a family in Church, (I know people who do this) even if you may not want to be in the same ward cause it's too painful or uncomfortable but live very close so the children can come over whenever they want & always be trying to get back together someday for the sake of your children & your own eternal welfare & especially to save your spouse for she will need it if she caused the divorce. BUT, if your wife is too hardhearted for this & will get upset if you sit with her & the kids in Church then the best thing is to keep her as happy as possible & heed her wishes, so it doesn't cause worse things for the children & you. Love her & serve her & keep things very amiable.

If you really are willing to put your children's & ex-wife's welfare & happiness 1st before your own, I would do everything in your power to fulfill your ex-wife's every wish every day & do whatever it takes to make her happy & relieve her burdens & work to get back together with her someday. This will guarantee you an eternal marriage with her said Pres. Hinckley. No one can resist True Love, though it may take awhile, it will always win, always. Guaranteed. Besides, if you didn't want the divorce & you don't date, you are still 100% married in God's eyes anyway (for he does not recognize unjustified divorces) & he wants you to be together everywhere & whenever possible.

Edited by foreverafter
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Most divorces are for irreconcilable differences.

Choosing to divorce UNjustifiably for whatever reason is still one of the greatest of sins that brings excommunication, in this life or the next, unless the spouse returns & repents before they die & loses the chance to. If a spouse is justified to divorce than that means the other spouse has broken their covenants in a most serious way & is the guilty one. But if a spouse divorces a faithful spouse then the one forcing the divorce is the guilty one committing the serious sin. Either way at least one spouse has or is breaking their sacred covenants.

Edited by foreverafter
Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you must know, the woman cheated on the man. The woman committed sin. The man was justified in the divorce.

She has since repented and is in good standing with the Church, and with him.

That's enough for me.

You know, sometimes people just make mistakes. That doesn't make them bad people. The bad ones are the ones who don't care, don't recognize they've hurt another, and don't seek repentance.

She is a good woman. She is my dear friend. He is my dear friend also. I would do anything for either of them.

You said:

It is impossible for both to be "good".

So, I respectfully disagree.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes. It took a lot of humility for her to do what she did. Of course, everyone knew what happened. We all watched her repentance process. She continued to come and stuck through it. To say it must not have been easy sounds like a major understatement.

I still think one who commits sin can be a good person, at least to me. Maybe God sees it differently, but He can if He wants to. I am not perfect and therefore do my very best to accept people for who they are, weakness included.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I still think one who commits sin can be a good person, at least to me.

I agree that even people who commit serious sins can do many 'good' things & they usually do. I guess by 'good' I was meaning 'righteous'. We just aren't righteous when we commit serious sin, at least not until we repent.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It is impossible for both to be "good". In every divorce at least one spouse is committing sin worthy of excommunication, sometimes it's both.

???? Really? Can you site your source for this outlandish comment? "Every" divorce....at least one spouse is worthy of excommunication????

divorce is always spouse abuse by one or the other or both, not to mention abuse on the children.

I know plenty of divorced people and there wasn't abuse and neither party was excommunicated. Guess that blows your theory.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Choosing to divorce UNjustifiably for whatever reason is still one of the greatest of sins that brings excommunication, in this life or the next, unless the spouse returns & repents before they die & loses the chance to. If a spouse is justified to divorce than that means the other spouse has broken their covenants in a most serious way & is the guilty one. But if a spouse divorces a faithful spouse then the one forcing the divorce is the guilty one committing the serious sin. Either way at least one spouse has or is breaking their sacred covenants.

While this is often the case, it isn't true in all cases. Sometimes two people just don't get along very well. An event occurs that changes them. It could be a death of a child/loved one, hormonal imbalance, or some tragedy, that just makes them no longer able to work well together. We have in my ward a couple that divorced, but are still friends and work closely to raise their 3 kids. They get along better in separate households than in one. Neither went to a disciplinarian council, neither one sinned. Events occurred that separated them in many ways (he's military), and they grew apart. Arguing does not make a good family life. She ran things her way when he would be gone for 6 months to a year. He would want to run things his way when he returned. Tensions mounted. It seemed better to part amicably, than to submit the kids to years of fighting.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Choosing to divorce UNjustifiably for whatever reason is still one of the greatest of sins that brings excommunication, in this life or the next

I have never seen people be excommunicated for divorcing their spouse. I am sorry but your claims are absolutely unfounded. Somehow you have twisted scripture and things you have heard the prophets say into a strange belief that only you hold. I don’t know what it is in your past that feeds this belief but the truth of the matter is that it is your personal belief and not church doctrine. Because of this it is your opinion or rather “The gospel according to Foreverafter.”

If you are sealed in the temple and you and your spouse divorce and the sealing is broken then you are no longer sealed. Period. You would need to be resealed for you to still be “married” to your spouse. The sealing is broken by proper authorities who have the authority to bind and break in heaven and on earth. No amount of wishful thinking will make it otherwise.

Also there is not always abuse present when there is a divorce, I don’t know where you got this idea from or what scriptures or words from prophets or general authorities you have twisted to come up with this idea but again this is an unfounded opinion of yours. Two people can come to a point where staying together is really not the best idea for them. Yes there are sometimes when working on fixing the marriage is still a good option, but not always. Also sometimes staying together just for the kids really is not the best option. Which would really be better? Staying together for the kids and having the children watch as Mommy and Daddy fight and scream at each other for years and years. Or splitting up and maintaining a friendly relationship between each other while raising the kids separately. Truthfully I think you could argue both sides, which means that in some cases one way works and in other cases the other way works.

True love, which would better be called “Christ like love” does not fix everything. You can not guarantee this as you can not change other people’s minds on things. If one spouse has decided to leave then no amount of “true love” will cause them to change their mind. They have to make the decision on their own. And no, this does not mean that they are sinning. I have a friend whose wife committed adultery; she decided to stay with the man she had the affair with. My friend divorced his wife, they were not sealed, but even if they were he would be in the right to divorce her and have the sealing broken. Now lets say that she repented and came back to him years later and asked him to remarry her. He has no commitment to remarry her and him deciding to not remarry her is not a sin as she no longer has any hold on him.

I know you believe differently, but please keep in mind that this is only your “interpretation” of scripture and words from the Prophets, and as your interpretation is not what everyone believes. So please instead of replying like what you say is gospel truth, discuss your interpretations for what they really are, your personal beliefs. Say, I believe instead of stating something as fact. Also if you are going to state something as fact be sure to cite your sources. What you claim to believe is very controversial because it is the self proclaimed beliefs of one woman and not official church doctrine. Stating your beliefs as church doctrine WILL cause people to ask for citation. And by use of proper citing methods you will not break any copyright laws.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Divorce in & of itself is severe abuse & abandonment to one of the spouses, even if it doesn't seem like there was any abuse previous to the break up, though there always is, it's just people don't see it or call it abuse, whether it is emotional, verbal, financial, spiritual, sexual or physical.

Unfortunately in many divorces these days the guilty spouse does not get disciplined because the leaders do not know who caused the divorce or if it was justified or not & the guilty spouse or spouses often even retain their temple recommends & good standing in the church.

This is sad because the guilty one is then not helped to repent & usually becomes even more hardened & past feeling by committing adultery after the divorce when they date or remarry. Some come to themselves & repent on their own years after the divorce. But someday when the truth is known, usually in the next life, that is when the punishments for divorce will be given to the guilty unrepentant spouse or spouses if it wasn't done in this life.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Choosing to divorce UNjustifiably for whatever reason is still one of the greatest of sins that brings excommunication, in this life or the next, unless the spouse returns & repents before they die & loses the chance to. If a spouse is justified to divorce than that means the other spouse has broken their covenants in a most serious way & is the guilty one. But if a spouse divorces a faithful spouse then the one forcing the divorce is the guilty one committing the serious sin. Either way at least one spouse has or is breaking their sacred covenants.

Please provide documentation of the practice of posthumous excommunication.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sometimes two people just don't get along very well. It seemed better to part amicably, than to submit the kids to years of fighting.

Just because two people choose to not get along does not justifiy divorce. Divorce would still be considered committing Adultery for one or both spouses. You must be innocent to not commit adultery by divorcing & if you fight back & argue you are not innocent. It is a choice to get along, it takes two to fight. If one is loving & serving all the wishes of the other as they vowed they would & refuses to argue but gives the other person what they want (unless it's evil) then that usually ends the contention.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Divorce in & of itself is severe abuse & abandonment to one of the spouses, even if it doesn't seem like there was any abuse previous to the break up, though there always is, it's just people don't see it or call it abuse, whether it is emotional, verbal, financial, spiritual, sexual or physical.

Unfortunately in many divorces these days the guilty spouse does not get disciplined because the leaders do not know who caused the divorce or if it was justified or not & the guilty spouse or spouses often even retain their temple recommends & good standing in the church.

This is sad because the guilty one is then not helped to repent & usually becomes even more hardened & past feeling by committing adultery after the divorce when they date or remarry. Some come to themselves & repent on their own years after the divorce. But someday when the truth is known, usually in the next life, that is when the punishments for divorce will be given to the guilty unrepentant spouse or spouses if it wasn't done in this life.

Just because two people choose to not get along does not justifiy divorce. Divorce would still be considered committing Adultery for one or both spouses. You must be innocent to not commit adultery by divorcing & if you fight back & argue you are not innocent. It is a choice to get along, it takes two to fight. If one is loving & serving all the wishes of the other as they vowed they would & refuses to argue but gives the other person what they want (unless it's evil) then that usually ends the contention.

These statements are not offical gospel doctrine, if you believe they are then please provide citations from where they came from. You have no proof what so ever that people will be punished in the next life for divorce. This is purely only your speculation. And no, once a divorce has occured and there has been a breaking of the temple sealing it is not adultery. Fighting or argueing does not mean someone is not innocent. This is like the old medieval belief that if a person dies from some sort of torture then they are guilty. You can not use the arguement that if someone argues or fights that they are not innocent.

Also giving a person everything they want is not a way of showing love. Heavenly Father shows us this. If we pray to him and say, "I want this and this and this and this." chances are we are not going to get it, or we will not get things exactly the way we wanted them. I do think that we need to serve our spouses and love them unconditionally, but that does not mean giving them everything that they want. Imagine if we raised our children that way, we would have spoiled brats running everywhere.

Please state these as your beliefs, or provide citations for your sources.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Fighting or argueing does not mean someone is not innocent. This is like the old medieval belief that if a person dies from some sort of torture then they are guilty. You can not use the arguement that if someone argues or fights that they are not innocent..

If we throw the arguer into a pool of water and they float, does that mean they're witch?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share