Divorced. Same Ward?

[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.

I'm sorry to have to disagree for Christ & the Prophets have made it very clear that divorce decrees have no effect on a temple marriage or any marriage if one spouse was & is faithful & doesn't want the divorce & that the couple is still 100 % completely married & sealed. It is impossible for a spouse to really divorce or get unsealed from a faithful spouse who does not want the divorce & who keeps their vows. The forced divorce decree has no effect on their marriage, though they must abide by earthly court decrees on finances & children, but they are still married & the guilty one just out committing adultery on their faithful spouse & must one day repent & return in this life or the next if their faithful spouse wants them back.

Now if they BOTH go out & start dating after the divorce, as is very common, then yes, that would end the marriage, for both would break their covenants by dating which is unfaithfulness & that would end the marriage. But the spouse that caused the divorce, maybe both of them, would be committing adultery by dating or remarriage even though the marriage was mutually over. Christ taught this very clearly, as have modern prophets.

Here are a few references for starters:

Joseph Fielding Smith, CR Apr. 1961. He teaches that no judge in the world can annul a temple marriage & how divorce is still absolute adultery even if the Church doesn't always enforce discipline at the time of divorce, one day God will & even him 'the Prophet' doesn't have the authorization to change that fact. It is what it is & he tells us to read Matthew 19:9 & live by it.

Brigham Young, "A Few Words of Doctrine", 8 Oct. 1891. He teaches how divorces are invalid with God & have no effect if one spouse is faithful.

Elder George F. Richards, CR Oct. 1843, 52-53. (who says that even the President of the Church cannot break a sealing if one spouse has been faithful, the marriage must be protected & honored & it holds even if the other spouse wants a divorce.)

James E. Talmage, Jesus The Christ, p. 474. He explains how Christ taught that the woman (or man) is still the spouse of & still married to the spouse who divorced her/him.

Brigham Young, Journal of Discourses, Vo.l. 17, June 28, 1874. He explains that a bill of divorce has no effect on a marriage to a faithful spouse. That there is no such law for a spouse to get away from a faithful spouse who wants to stay married. He calls the divorce foolishness & folly & as good as a blank piece of paper. That a spouse is bound to their faithful spouse forever & ever & can't just walk away, even if the civil laws seem to allow it. God does not.

Brigham Young, JD 1:119-120. He warns men that if they leave or disert or abuse their wife they will lose their exaltation.

Joseph F. Smith, CR April, 1917, 6-7. He teaches that a man who divorces the mother of his children will be d.

Joseph F. Smith, Gospel Doctrine, p. 313. Again he restates that any man who neglects (by divorce & abandonment, see above) the mother of his children, will merit the curse of the Almightly God. etc. etc.

Pres. Joseph Fielding Smith, CR Apr. 1961, p. 49-50. He explains how divorce is one of the greatest sins that can be committed & only those who do are those who have lost the Spirit & broken the commandments & their covenants. For if they had the Spirit & were righteous & keeping their covenants they would love their spouse unconditionally & not want a divorce. (though they may have to seek safety for awhile till their spouse repents from abuse)

Joseph Fielding Smith, Doctrines of Salvation 2:80-85. Teaches about how salvation & exalation is lost by divorce & the eternal misery that comes from breaking the marriage covenant if spouses don't repent & how people should be frightened to divorce upon trivial matters (like they refuse to get along or don't love their spouse anymore, etc.).

JFS, Doctrines of Salvation, 2:99. Explains that those who deceive their bishop & get a recommend to marry or remarry in the temple but are really guilty of sin (like mistreatment of spouse in their former marriage & unjustly divorced, etc.) then the sealing is invalid & they bring on themselves the heaviest cursings of all.

Spencer W. Kimball, BYU Devotional, Sept. 7, 1976. Said Divorce was an evil & the principle tool of the Devil & the very acceptance of it as a cure for marriage problems is a serious sin.

Pres. David O. McKay, Gospel Ideals, p. 473. Said to Warn men who seek a divorce "that they are on the road to hell" if they leave their faithful wife & that nothing but unhappiness for him can result.

Edited May 12, 2009 by foreverafter

[Just_A_Guy]

Brigham Young, "A Few Words of Doctrine", 8 Oct. 1891. He teaches how divorces are invalid with God & have not effect if one spouse is faithful.

He teaches a lot more than that. Why don't you tell us what else he teaches in that same speech?

And please quit copy-pasting the same sources over and over. You've repeatedly dated this speech as "1891", which would be miraculous indeed since Young died in 1877.

[bytor2112]

Foreverafter clings to this notion despite evidence to the contrary. I have posted quotes from Elder McConkie addressing this matter and Elder Oaks referencing Elder McConkie on this matter, and her basic reply is that they are not Prophets and are in error.

I guess in her view, their are a whole lot of unrepentant adulterers in the church including a couple of late Prophets.

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.”

Edited May 12, 2009 by bytor2112

[Tarnished]

I'm sorry to have to disagree but Christ & the Prophets have made it very clear that divorce decrees have no effect on a temple marriage or any marriage if one spouse was & is faithful & doesn't want the divorce & that the couple is still 100 % completely married & sealed. It is impossible for a spouse to really divorce or get unsealed from a faithful spouse who does not want the divorce & who keeps their vows. The forced divorce decree has no effect on their marriage, though they must abide by earthly court decrees on finances & children, but they are still married & the guilty one just out committing adultery on their faithful spouse & must one day repent & return in this life or the next if their faithful spouse wants them back.

Now if they BOTH go out & start dating after the divorce, as it very common, then yes, that would end the marriage, but both have to break their covenants by dating to end the marriage not just one forcing divorce on the other. Christ taught this very clearly, as have modern prophets.

Here are a few references for starters:

Joseph Fielding Smith, CR Apr. 1961. He teaches that no judge in the world can annul a temple marriage.

Brigham Young, "A Few Words of Doctrine", 8 Oct. 1891. He teaches how divorces are invalid with God & have not effect if one spouse is faithful.

Elder George F. Richards, CR Oct. 1843, 52-53. (who says that even the President of the Church cannot break a sealing if one spouse has been faithful, the marriage must be protected & honored & it holds even if the other spouse wants a divorce.)

James E. Talmage, Jesus The Christ, p. 474. He explains how Christ taught that the woman (or man) is still the spouse, still married to the spouse who divorced her/him.

Brigham Young, Journal of Discourses, Vo.l. 17, June 28, 1874. He explains that a bill of divorce has not effect on a marriage to a faithful spouse. That there is no such law for a spouse to get away from a faithful spouse who wants to stay married. He calls the divorce foolishness & folly & as good as a blank piece of paper. That a spouse is bound to their faithful spouse forever & ever & can't just walk away, even if the civil laws seem to allow it. God does not.

Please note that I said, if the sealing has been broken by proper authority. If a sealing is broken by the proper authority then it is broken. The marriage has been terminated both on earth and in heaven.

Also, could you please quote your references as we are receiving your interpretation of all of these references. I have tried to run a search on all of them and have had no luck finding any of these online.

Please note also that I am not saying that divorce is a good idea or that it is ordaned of God, however there are circumstances where divorce is warranted. According to your beliefs the man and woman would be committing adultery if they remarried, even if the divorce was warranted and the temple sealing was broken by proper authority.

[bytor2112]

Question: 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.

Edited May 12, 2009 by bytor2112

[MarginOfError]

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.

It is not impossible for both spouses in a divorce to be good. In fact, it’s quite likely. The fact of the matter is that all good people are flawed. We have people in our church who struggle with tithing, alcohol, sexual inclinations, pornography, and masturbation. And amazingly, many of these people say their prayers daily, read their scriptures loyally, and have stronger testimonies than those who don’t struggle with these things. Being a “good” person is a very broad description that cannot be overcome by a few flaws. People generally consider me a good person because I volunteer for a local boy scout troop (not sponsored by the Church) even though I have no sons and my youngest child is all of a year old. Yet I go out on a very regular basis to try and teach teenagers to grow up into men. Yay, MOE, he’s such a good guy! Does that fact that I often fail to recognize my wife’s needs and desires without her explicit help make me a bad person? Of course it doesn’t…on the whole, I’m a good man—I’m just not good enough.

In many cases of divorce, we see something very similar. Both parties are good people who are trying desperately to do the best they can. For some reason they can’t seem to make it work together. The fact that they get divorced does not automatically make one or both of them ‘bad’ people, nor does it make them ‘unrighteous’ people anymore than your short-sighted and ego-centric biases make you ‘bad’ or ‘unrighteous.’

And divorce is not the same thing as abuse. I’m going to come back to this later, but I can’t say this to you enough, because somehow it’s got to sink in for you. DIVORCE IS NOT THE SAME THING AS ABUSE.

Also, it is not always feasible for divorced persons to be in the same ward, let alone remarry. Marriage involves a huge emotional commitment, and requires the partners to extend themselves to another person in a way that opens them to extreme hurt and heartache. Almost always, when a divorce occurs, deep scars are left in each person. Those scars take years, decades, or possibly even beyond mortality to heal. And they do not need to be healed immediately. Elder Scott in the April 2008 General Conference talked about healing from such pains, and made the point of saying that if you can’t find it in you to forgive right away, that’s okay. Sometimes we need to wait to let ourselves heal some and to learn to use the atonement more efficiently before we can apply it to forgiving others.

What’s more, you have this bad habit of equating divorce with adultery. This is an incredibly pharisaical view of divorce that fails to understand the principles that the Savior has taught. I highly recommend you read through some of President James E. Faust’s comments about marriage. I find the following particularly enlightening.

Over a lifetime of dealing with human problems, I have struggled to understand what might be considered “just cause” for breaking of covenants. I confess I do not claim the wisdom nor authority to definitely state what is “just cause.” Only the parties to the marriage can determine this. They must bear the responsibility for the train of consequences which inevitably follow if these covenants are not honored. In my opinion, “just cause” should be nothing less serious than a prolonged and apparently irredeemable relationship which is destructive of a person’s dignity as a human being. (LDS.org - Ensign Article - Fathers, Mothers, Marriage)

To continue in a marriage that will continue to destroy your dignity as a human being is not expected of anyone, and such a relationship is adequate and just cause for a divorce. If this were to happen to a couple where no adultery occurred, you insist that if either party remarries, then that party is guilty of adultery. I stand up and boldly declare that notion absurd, callous, and un-Christlike. The divorce, in such a case, represents a failure of the parties to learn how to access the atonement to heal their relationship. This marks a transgression (notice I am not calling it a sin) of which both can be forgiven, and you have no business saying that they cannot or that they will not. Christ and Christ alone may determine if any of these people are guilty of adultery.

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.

Divorce does not bring excommunication. Sin brings excommunication. I have yet to see divorce appear on a list of sins. Sometimes we see sins that commonly lead to a divorce, but never once have I seen divorce listed as a sin. I have seen it described as a problem, a plague, and a curse, but these things are brought upon us by our sins and are not in and of themselves sins.

And while you are correct that in a divorce, at least one, and almost always both, partners are guilty of breaking their covenants, I refer you again to President Faust’s comments. His comments indicate that there is indeed just cause for breaking covenants that must be determined within each couple facing this terrible decision.

I was referring to the time of divorce where always one or both is in need of serious repentance. It is always wonderful when the guilty party repents.

It is perfectly feasible that both spouses can be considered righteous at the time of a divorce. Your language here ostracizes divorcees, and accuses them of some great sin that is the fabrication of your own mind. When sin is involved, it is wonderful when it is repented of, but this is true regardless of whether divorce is in the mix or not. And repentance does not require that a divorced couple get back together. Repentance is individual. If a couple must repent, it actually means each person in the couple must repent. It is never, ever a joint venture. Repentance is always between the sinner and the Savior.

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.

Many many righteous people commit serious sins. People are in their very nature hypocritical. I don’t say that to be a cynic, but to point out the fact that many of us here claim to be righteous latter-day saints, but we all have our sins of varying degrees. I think you would be surprised to learn that it is quite common for some of the most righteous people you know to struggle with some of the more serious sins we face. It is because of their struggles that they’ve learned to use the Atonement and develop their testimonies. Unrighteousness is not defined by a few acts. Righteous people do unrighteous things. But righteous people do righteous things more often than they do unrighteous things. You must judge righteousness by the whole person and all their actions.

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 comments absolutely terrify me. So again, I stress that divorce is not abuse. When a relationship is irredeemable to a person’s dignity, to remain in the relationship would be more abusive than to leave it. To leave a relationship in order to salvage your divine nature and individual worth is acceptable and is not abusive. Abuse is a willful, knowing, and purposeful intent to inflict harm on another person emotionally, spiritually, physically, or sexually. Do inflict harm without such intent is not abuse, it is negligence.

What’s more, your solution to ending divorce and ‘ending abuse’ is

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.

Ironically, this is exactly where the cycle of abuse starts: when one partner consistently yields to the will of the other. If only one partner is making the sacrifices and compromising their desires, that’s when an abusive relationship begins. Both partners have to give and yield, not just one. Your proposed solution would not end divorce and abuse—instead, divorce and abuse would thrive if people took your advice.

I'm sorry to have to disagree but Christ & the Prophets have made it very clear that divorce decrees have no effect on a temple marriage or any marriage if one spouse was & is faithful & doesn't want the divorce & that the couple is still 100 % completely married & sealed. It is impossible for a spouse to really divorce or get unsealed from a faithful spouse who does not want the divorce & who keeps their vows. The forced divorce decree has no effect on their marriage, though they must abide by earthly court decrees on finances & children, but they are still married & the guilty one just out committing adultery on their faithful spouse & must one day repent & return in this life or the next if their faithful spouse wants them back.

Now if they BOTH go out & start dating after the divorce, as it very common, then yes, that would end the marriage, but both have to break their covenants by dating to end the marriage not just one forcing divorce on the other. Christ taught this very clearly, as have modern prophets.

Here are a few references for starters:

Joseph Fielding Smith, CR Apr. 1961. He teaches that no judge in the world can annul a temple marriage & how divorce is still absolute adultery even if the Church doesn't always enforce discipline at the time of divorce, one day God will & even him 'the Prophet' doesn't have the authorization to change that fact. It is what it is & he tells us to read it & live by it.

Brigham Young, "A Few Words of Doctrine", 8 Oct. 1891. He teaches how divorces are invalid with God & have not effect if one spouse is faithful.

Elder George F. Richards, CR Oct. 1843, 52-53. (who says that even the President of the Church cannot break a sealing if one spouse has been faithful, the marriage must be protected & honored & it holds even if the other spouse wants a divorce.)

James E. Talmage, Jesus The Christ, p. 474. He explains how Christ taught that the woman (or man) is still the spouse, still married to the spouse who divorced her/him.

Brigham Young, Journal of Discourses, Vo.l. 17, June 28, 1874. He explains that a bill of divorce has not effect on a marriage to a faithful spouse. That there is no such law for a spouse to get away from a faithful spouse who wants to stay married. He calls the divorce foolishness & folly & as good as a blank piece of paper. That a spouse is bound to their faithful spouse forever & ever & can't just walk away, even if the civil laws seem to allow it. God does not.

Brigham Young, JD 1:119-120. He warns men that if they leave or disert or abuse their wife they will lose their exaltation.

Joseph F. Smith, CR April, 1917, 6-7. He teaches that a man who divorces the mother of his children will be d.

Joseph F. Smith, Gospel Doctrine, p. 313. Again he restates that any man who neglects (by divorce & abandonment, see above) the mother of his children, will merit the curse of the Almightly God. etc. etc.

Pres. Joseph Fielding Smith, CR Apr. 1961, p. 49-50. He explains how divorce is one of the greatest sins that can be committed & only those who do are those who have lost the Spirit & broken the commandments & their covenants.

Joseph Fielding Smith, Doctrines of Salvation 2:80-85. Teaches about how salvation & exalation is lost by divorce & the eternal misery that comes from breaking the marriage covenant if spouses don't repent & how people should be frightened to divorce upon trivial matters (like they refuse to get along or don't love their spouse anymore, etc.).

Here you have failed entirely to comprehend the purpose of Sealing and the meaning of the covenant that comes with it. The Sealing ordinance is accompanied with what Joseph Smith called the ‘patriarchal priesthood.’ It is an order of the priesthood—or an appendage of the Melchizedek Priesthood—which carries no office or ordinance. It holds the keys to guiding and leading a family on earth, and is essential for individual salvation. The blessings, keys, promises, and covenants that God has made with each individual remain in force for the individuals, even if their temporal marriage falls to pieces. What you have to understand is that in LDS doctrine, marriage isn’t about husband and wife at all—it’s about children and posterity. When a couple divorces, if they’ve been sealed in the temple, the blessings of that sealing remain in force for each spouse and all of their children so long as each individual continues to repent—even if the mother and father are not married to each other. Furthermore, conditioned on their repentance, the divorced mother and father still retain the keys of that patriarchal order of the priesthood which grants them authority to use the additional spiritual gifts God has to offer for raising their children.

I understand you have your views and opinions about marriage and divorce. But I can’t help but think that they are heavily biased by your own experiences with the topic. Whatever experiences you have had to make you think what you do, I am truly sorry you’ve had to go through them. But your interpretations of the doctrine are terribly flawed and detrimental to the spiritual growth and well-being of those who you seek to advise. I implore you to try to study this outside of your own experiences and learn to understand what others must feel as they go through these dreadful trials of life. The spectrum of experiences is so much wider than what you’re admitting, and your counsel will not succeed in helping those who need help most.

[MarginOfError]

I wanted to repost this alone to make sure it stood out from the rest of my tirade. This is hugely important and I would call special attention to this point.

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 comments absolutely terrify me. So again, I stress that divorce is not abuse. When a relationship is irredeemable to a person’s dignity, to remain in the relationship would be more abusive than to leave it. To leave a relationship in order to salvage your divine nature and individual worth is acceptable and is not abusive. Abuse is a willful, knowing, and purposeful intent to inflict harm on another person emotionally, spiritually, physically, or sexually. Do inflict harm without such intent is not abuse, it is negligence.

What’s more, your solution to ending divorce and ‘ending abuse’ is

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.

Ironically, this is exactly where the cycle of abuse starts: when one partner consistently yields to the will of the other. If only one partner is making the sacrifices and compromising their desires, that’s when an abusive relationship begins. Both partners have to give and yield, not just one. Your proposed solution would not end divorce and abuse—instead, divorce and abuse would thrive if people took your advice.

[Faded]

Right ... so to drag this back to the threads actual purpose before it was so rudely hijacked ...

To the original poster: You and your ex-wife will have to discuss and decide on the matter. There is no Church policy stating you can't be in the same ward. I think it's important to balance the comfort level of you and your wife against the comfort level of your kid. Just be diplomatic about it and if you must have an answer, it'd be the Bishop who would be in the best position to offer advice. The Lord does not command in all things, and for a lot of things, the Bishop will receive the necessary inspiration. I'd also do a lot of soul-searching and make sure that your Heavenly Father is okay with your final decision. Going to the same ward isn't a sin and there is no right or wrong involved, but it could be awkward.

Edited May 12, 2009 by Faded

[Justice]

From earlier (go to page 2 to know what I'm talking about):

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.

When Elder Bednar was our Stake President, he made the comment that he loved our Ward. He said we exemplified many of the purposes we are organized into Wards for. I don't remember his exact words, but he said he saw that our hearts were together as one, and that we loved each other, and showed charity and service to one another. Ironically, I'd venture to say that our Ward boundary is one of the largest in the U.S.

So, what you propose may not be possible in some Wards, or at least far more difficult. Often people (even members of the Church) can be critical and judgemental. If your wife sees these traits in her Ward, she may be right.

As I said earlier, I would seriously listen to what your ex-wife has to say. It may not be pride driving her feelings, but a sense of what might happen.

[applepansy]

My sister recently got divorced. Her husband was abusive. It got worse with each pregnancy and even worse when each of his parents passed away. Eventually she filed for a restraining order.

He rented a house in the same Ward. Prior to this the Bishop wasn't taking sides. Then he saw my ex-BIL try to manipulate the Ward members and the children.

On his weekend with the kids he would do everything he could possibly do to stop my sister from talking to the kids. On her weekend, he would entice the children with toys and candy to sit with him during Sacrament meeting instead of with their mother.

Needless to say everyone saw what he was doing. Unfortunately some men in the ward were on his side. Its amazing how behaviors become more evident as time goes by.

Anyway... If your wife is uncomfortable having you in the same ward, respect her wishes. Being close by doesn't mean you have to be in the same ward, neighborhood. etc.

applepansy

[Connie]

Here are a few references for starters:

Brigham Young, "A Few Words of Doctrine", 8 Oct. 1891. He teaches how divorces are invalid with God & have no effect if one spouse is faithful.

Brigham Young, Journal of Discourses, Vo.l. 17, June 28, 1874. He explains that a bill of divorce has no effect on a marriage to a faithful spouse. That there is no such law for a spouse to get away from a faithful spouse who wants to stay married. He calls the divorce foolishness & folly & as good as a blank piece of paper. That a spouse is bound to their faithful spouse forever & ever & can't just walk away, even if the civil laws seem to allow it. God does not.

Brigham Young, JD 1:119-120. He warns men that if they leave or disert or abuse their wife they will lose their exaltation.

Spencer W. Kimball, BYU Devotional, Sept. 7, 1976. Said Divorce was an evil & the principle tool of the Devil & the very acceptance of it as a cure for marriage problems is a serious sin.

Here are the links for these four i was able to find:

Primary sources/Brigham Young 8 October 1861 discourse on plural marriage - FAIRMormon

Volume 17 | Journal of Discourses

Volume 1 | Journal of Discourses

Marriage and Divorce - Spencer W. Kimball

Though i should point out that none of these are canonical sources.

[rameumptom]

Brigham Young said and did many things concerning marriage. He stated that under plural marriage, only the wife could ask for a divorce. One of his divorced him. BF Johnson tells about one of his wives insisting on a divorce, because she did not like plural marriage. Brigham Young counseled Johnson to let her have it. She was later sealed to another man, with Brigham Young's blessing!

So, let's make sure we read all his statements within context - which for him usually meant in context of plural marriage.

[foreverafter]

Brigham Young said and did many things concerning marriage. He stated that under plural marriage, only the wife could ask for a divorce. One of his divorced him. BF Johnson tells about one of his wives insisting on a divorce, because she did not like plural marriage. Brigham Young counseled Johnson to let her have it. She was later sealed to another man, with Brigham Young's blessing!QUOTE]

I am not surprised Brigham Young let her have a divorce. No woman in any kind of marriage is obligated to stay sealed to a man that is not treating her right.

[MarginOfError]

Brigham Young said and did many things concerning marriage. He stated that under plural marriage, only the wife could ask for a divorce. One of his divorced him. BF Johnson tells about one of his wives insisting on a divorce, because she did not like plural marriage. Brigham Young counseled Johnson to let her have it. She was later sealed to another man, with Brigham Young's blessing!QUOTE]

I am not surprised Brigham Young let her have a divorce. No woman in any kind of marriage is obligated to stay sealed to a man that is not treating her right.

I'm pretty sure that the logical extension of what you said here contradicts every statement you've made on this topic so far.

[foreverafter]

I'm pretty sure that the logical extension of what you said here contradicts every statement you've made on this topic so far.

I have always believed that there may be justified divorces, but "justified" means "could" not "should". For even "justified" divorces can still cause the loss of sealings to children & other vital eternal blessings. Keeping one's marriage covenants 'no matter what' is always the surest & safest thing eternally.

[foreverafter]

I'm pretty sure that the logical extension of what you said here contradicts every statement you've made on this topic so far.

I have always believed that there may be justified divorces, but "justified" means "could" not "should". The woman has a choice if she is not being treated right. But just because Heavenly Father would let her out of the marriage if she wants that doesn't mean that's what he wants, I believe Heavely Father wants a strong women who will help him save his errant son, her husband & only she can do that by her unconditional love, if she only will, but most women want to seek their own happiness above the eternal welfare of their errant husbands. Even "justified" divorces can still cause the loss of sealings to children & the spouse & the loss of some of the greatest eternal blessings too. Keeping one's marriage covenants 'no matter what' is always the surest & safest thing eternally.

Edited May 14, 2009 by foreverafter

[HEthePrimate]

Afraid that's going to have to be between you and your ex. However, I will say that if it's that important to your ex that you not be in the same ward, it will cause problems if you ignore her wishes. It'll be easier, IMO, for your daughter to deal with two groups of friends and teachers than with fighting parents.

Best wishes.

HEP